<DOC> [106th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:75059.wais] GETTING U.S. AID TO COLOMBIA ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ OCTOBER 12, 2000 __________ Serial No. 106-276 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-059 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001 For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DOUG OSE, California ------ PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent) DAVID VITTER, Louisiana Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas DOUG OSE, California JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DAVID VITTER, Louisiana Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Sharon Pinkerton, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Charley Diaz, Congressional Fellow Ryan McKee, Clerk Sarah Despres, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on October 12, 2000................................. 1 Statement of: Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana................................................. 12 Ford, Jess T., Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division, Government Accounting Office; Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics, Department of State; Brigadier General Keith Huber, Director of Operations, U.S. Southern Command; and Ana Marie Salazar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Drug Enforcement Policy and Support............................. 18 Gilman, Hon. Benjamin, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York.......................................... 15 Miller, Andrew, acting advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean for Amnesty International................ 77 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Beers, Rand, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics, Department of State, prepared statement of...... 38 Ford, Jess T., Associate Director, International Relations and Trade Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division, Government Accounting Office, prepared statement of............................................... 21 Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 6 Miller, Andrew, acting advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean for Amnesty International, prepared statement of............................................... 80 Sheridan, Brian, Assistant Secretary of Defense, prepared statement of............................................... 46 GETTING U.S. AID TO COLOMBIA ---------- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2000 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Mica, Ose, Mink, Cummings, Kucinich, Tierney, Turner, and Schakowsky. Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief counsel; Charley Diaz, congressional fellow; Ryan McKee, clerk; Sarah Despres and David Rapallo, minority counsels; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Mica. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources to order. Apologize for those that have been waiting, particularly our first panel of witnesses. But we did have a vote that was scheduled for 1:30, and then they added another vote, so we were delayed. I appreciate everyone's forbearance. The order of business for the hearing today will be that I'll start with an opening statement in order to get the hearing underway, and we will be joined by our minority and majority members. And then we'll hear from our first panel. I think we have three panels. I believe we have three panels today. Today's hearing deals with the subject of getting U.S. assistance to Colombia. And this afternoon the subcommittee will, once again, examine the U.S. response to the growing crisis in Colombia. In July, the Congress passed a $1.3 billion supplemental aid package to support Plan Colombia. I voted for the package and the aid because U.S. assistance is absolutely critical to combating drug trafficking, and also to maintaining Colombia's democratic way of life. But I am very concerned that the Colombian people may not see any real help for months, even years to come, particularly as a result of the report that's going to be released today. My concerns stem from this administration's poor track record of delivering previously authorized counterdrug assistance, aid and equipment to Colombia. At this subcommittee's request, the General Accounting Office [GAO], examined the administration's effort to date, namely, those efforts of the Department of State and Department of Defense. What they found is not encouraging. As noted in the title of their draft report, U.S. assistance to Colombia will take years to produce results, this is a report that I have here, the prognosis for future aid delivery is dismal probably at best. As we enter the 21st century, our hemisphere is facing one of the greatest challenges to our national security as the situation in Colombia continues to deteriorate. Left unchecked, the narco-terrorist threat in Colombia has continued to spiral out of control and now threatens Latin America's oldest democracy as well as stability in the region. As the illegal drug trade continues to grow, it fuels narco-terrorism and undermines legitimate government institution, and also leads to increasing violence in this region. The impact of further destabilization of the region will have a devastating impact on our vital national security interests in that area. After years of pleading and pressure by House members, the administration finally submitted a Colombian aid proposal to Congress in February of this year. It arrived 7 months after General McCaffrey sounded the alarm, calling the situation an emergency. That's what's printed here, my staff printed, as I recall. He called it a flipping nightmare was his quote. And 4 months after the Pastrana government submitted Plan Colombia, officially asking the United States for assistance. Because the U.S. response has been slow to materialize, Colombia now supplies some 80 percent of the world's cocaine, the vast majority of the heroin seized in the United States. Furthermore, over the last several years, there has been an explosion of coca cultivation in Colombia of the recent explosion of opium poppy cultivation in Colombia is equally disturbing. Through DEA's heroin signature analysis program, we know that Colombia, not the Far East, and I know this through scientific testing, accounts for 70 percent of the heroin seized on the streets of the United States. All of these facts point to Colombia as the center of gravity of the drug supply and line to the United States. But despite years of congressional pleas for counterdrug assistance to Colombia, countless hearings and intense congressional pressure, resources approved by Congress have failed to be provided to Colombia in both a timely and also in an effective manner. First, information sharing was denied in 1994, which, in fact, turned the situation there into chaos, as my colleague from California Steve Horn so aptly described. As you recall, as of May 1994--he said this in 1994--``the Department of Defense decided unilaterally to stop sharing real time intelligence regarding aerial traffic in drugs with Colombia and Peru. Now, as I understand it, that decision, which hasn't been completely resolved, has thrown diplomatic relations with the host countries into chaos.'' That was a comment by Congressman Steve Horn. What we'll have to do is recess the hearing. I've got votes. Apologize again. But we'll continue. I'll finish my opening statement and we'll hold the hearing in recess until we reconvene. [Recess.] Mr. Mica. If we could, I'd like to call the subcommittee back to order. Apologize again for the delay. It appears the subcommittee is having as much difficulty getting this hearing underway as the administration is in getting anti narcotics resources to Colombia. Let me continue, if I may, with my opening statement. I just cited the chaos that was created by the administration in stopping real-time intelligence sharing. In 1996 and 1997, when this administration decertified Colombia without a national interest waiver, it severely undermined the legitimate drug fighting efforts of General Serrano and the Colombian National Police, cutting off international military educational money and also critical equipment. Even worse, today the absence of U.S. intelligence sharing, due in part to the reduced air coverage after the forced closure of Howard Air Force base in Panama, our counternarcotics efforts in the region have been even further crippled. Without an adequate contingency plan, there now exists a gap in coverage as the new forward operating locations [FOL's] come on line, the Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. southern command testified at one of our hearings earlier that the Department of Defense can only cover 15 percent of key trafficking routes 15 percent of the time. In fact, it may be after the year 2002 before our anti-surveillance capability has been fully restored. The Congress passed a supplemental aid package in July to increase funding for counternarcotics work in Colombia. This wasn't the first time we pumped money into counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. Colombia received more than $300 million funding under the fiscal year 1999 supplemental spending bill passed when Dennis Hastert, now our speaker, was chairman of the drug policy responsibility in a previous subcommittee. Sadly, less than half of the equipment Congress funded in that bill has been delivered, or in fact is operational. This administration's poor track record was the subject of the GAO investigation which I just cited, and we'll hear more about it today. This report concluded that ``the United States has encountered long-standing problems in providing counternarcotics assistance to Colombian law enforcement and military agencies involved in counternarcotics activities.'' The report went on to say ``these problems continue.'' The report cites that the Department of State, ``has not provided enough financial or logistical support to the Colombian National Police Helicopter Program.'' This administration has also resisted the congressional efforts to ensure that needed drug fighting equipment makes it to Colombia in a timely manner. The administration has fought the Congress for years on the Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Colombian National Police, and has a pathetic track record of delivering this type of assistance. And that type of assistance, incidentally, is the main part of the package, that $1.3 billion package, at least the anti-narcotics portion of it. In fact, even three helicopters, which account for the bulk of aid dollars in fiscal year 1999, when finally delivered to the Colombian National Police, sat idle for lack of proper floor armoring and ammunition. Despite this poor track record, this administration once again requested helicopters this time for the Colombian Armed Forces as the bulk of aid proposed in their proposal before the Congress this past February. Given the high cost of these assets, the poor delivery track record by the Department of State and the Office of International Narcotics Matters, I am deeply concerned about committing hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to a program that has not worked well in the past. As chairman of this subcommittee, however, I want to pursue programs that, in fact, have a proven track record of success. Complicating the equation is the increased activity by Colombian rebels, namely, more than 17,000 member narco- terrorist Army known as the FARC, and the 5,000-plus member ELN. These armies of insurgents now control nearly 40 percent of the Colombian countryside. The FARC Army has gone largely unchecked and is now expanding beyond Colombia's borders. I am deeply concerned about reports of FARC intrusions into neighboring countries. The rebels are heavily financed by the illegal drug trade and earned an estimated $600 million per year from illicit drug activity. And some of that also is outlined in this report that I think everyone needs to pay some attention to today. The basic tenet of this administration's aid package is to use the Colombian military and Colombian National Police to push into southern Colombia. I know it, you know it, and the rebels know it. We have been advertising this fact for over a year now. As a result, the rebels have done two things: they have fortified their defenses in the area in anticipation of the Colombian troops, and they are also exploring other areas of cultivation in and outside Colombia. When I asked about defensive countermeasure capability to ensure the safety of Colombian security forces and protect our investment, the State Department said they don't have definite proof of a surface-to- air [SAM], missile threat in southern Colombia. But I can tell you that any organization that can build, as we saw just a few weeks ago, a submarine, pretty complex piece of equipment just a few miles from Bogota, capable of carrying an astonishing 200 tons of cocaine, can certainly get their hands on surface to air missiles. One of the points that needs to continually be reemphasized to the American public is that Colombia matters. It matters both economically and it matters strategically. With 20 percent of the U.S. daily supply of crude and refined oil imports coming from that area and with the vitally important Panama Canal located just 150 miles to the north, the national security, and in fact, the economic implications and in fact, energy implications, which I think we're going to see in the next few days with the disruption in the Middle East, and now this disruption in this oil producing region, the implications to neighboring countries and to the United States are enormous. For all these reasons, the United States can ill afford further instability in this region also. Effective delivery of promised U.S. aid will likely make the difference between success and failure of Plan Colombia. And that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the executive branch, the Department of State, DOD in particular. This subcommittee will continue to play a key role in ensuring that the U.S. counterdrug aid to Columbia is both sufficient, appropriate, and delivered in a timely manner. Finally, as we face this serious and growing challenge in Colombia, our vital national interests are undeniably at stake. Drug-related deaths, as we have had reported to this subcommittee, drug-related deaths now exceed homicides in the United States for the first time in our history. The flow of deadly high purity heroin and cocaine now flood our streets. The average beginning age of a heroin addict under the Clinton administration has dropped from age 25 to age 17. These are startling facts that I believe the fact that the influx of illegal drugs to the United States is our greatest social challenge, and most insidious national security threat. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this concern. The situation in Colombia requires immediate attention, but the execution of U.S. aid and assistance in Plan Colombia needs to be carefully considered, especially in light of this administration's past track record. This hearing will shed light on their past record as we look for ways to ensure more timely and effective delivery for future aid. The lives of hundreds of brave Colombians and the lives of countless Americans here at home are at stake. With those comments, I am pleased to recognize for the purpose of an opening statement, the ranking member, the gentlelady from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink. [The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.003 Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we're having this hearing today to learn about the administration's plans to implement the massive aid package to Colombia that Congress voted on earlier this year. It's absolutely clear that there is a crisis in Colombia. Colombia is now the world's leader in coca cultivation, and the source of 80 percent of the world's cocaine. At the same time, armed insurgence groups are increasingly involved in the drug trade, and the government doesn't have control over almost half of the country. All of this is against a backdrop of a country that has been fighting a civil war for decades. A war that has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced over a million. Media accounts of human rights abuses, kidnappings and internal refugees in Colombia have become all too common. The United States has an interest in seeing this situation in Colombia reverse itself. The drugs that are grown in Colombia end up on the streets of the United States. The DEA estimates that 75 percent of the heroin seized in the United States originates in Colombia. To this end, the U.S. Government has committed $1.3 billion to help the Colombian Government eradicate this drug trade. $1.3 billion is a lot of money. However, I am concerned that the aid we are providing in the form of military equipment training and personnel will actually get the United States more involved in the Colombian civil war than it will deal with the drug problem in the United States. This concern that I know many of the Members of Congress share must be taken seriously. The Department of State Inspector General conducted an audit of the aid programs in Colombia, administered by the State Department. One of the conclusions of that audit was that it was unclear whether the eradication program today has decreased the supply of drugs from Colombia and whether this program has had any impact on the U.S. drug market. This audit also found in the drugs have moved from one region in Colombia to another and that they now concentrated in southern Colombia. The Colombian Government has not allowed full scale access into this region. However the criticism has been made that even if there were a full scale eradication effort in southern Colombia, the drugs will just move somewhere else, such as Ecuador, Brazil or Peru. Sadly, this is now becoming a reality. According to a Washington Post article of October 1, right wing paramilitary groups as well as left wing insurgence groups from Colombia have already become a presence in the Ecuadoran border with Colombia. According to this article, the fighters from Colombia's right wing militias have been arrested for running extortion rings in Ecuador, and Colombia's largest rebel group, the FARC, easily cross the borders into Ecuador. It's imperative that we seriously consider the real possibility of unintended consequences of this aid package, specifically, that we move the drug problem from one area to another or from one country to another, and that the United States becomes increasingly involved in the civil war. I am concerned that there is evidence that these possibilities are in fact becoming realities. I thank the chairman for holding these important hearings today. I would like to thank him for agreeing to our request to invite Mr. Andrew Miller from Amnesty International to testify this afternoon. I look forward to all the testimony and the witnesses. Thank you very much. Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady. I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your calling this hearing on getting U.S. aid to Colombia. From 1996 to 2000, Departments of State and the Federals and the U.S. Agency for International Development have provided at least $761 million in counternarcotics assistance to Colombia. It is fitting, since Colombia is the world's leading producer of cocaine and has become the major source of heroin that has devastated my community in Baltimore. Unfortunately not only are large amounts of heroin coming into my district, but the purity has increased. According to the DEA's domestic monitoring program, during the timeframe of October to December 1999, the average purity of south American heroin purchased through DNP buys in Baltimore tested 13.3 percent higher than the national average for that same timeframe. The high purity of these drugs has led to overdoses and emergency room visits that have taken a real toll on the health care infrastructure of my community. I strongly believe that we must support efforts to stop drugs from coming into our country. However, stopping drug abuse addiction and its related crime requires a three-pronged approach. It must encompass clear balanced and adequately funded education prevention, treatment, and interdiction strategies. My constituents have voiced concern about the amount of funding that we are spending toward the interdiction efforts. I also believe that our investments in treatment have not been balanced. Despite our grave concerns regarding the lack of funding for drug treatment and allegations of human rights abuses and corruption by Colombia's military and police forces, I voted in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill that added to the overall U.S. contribution of $1.3 billion to assist Andreas Pastrana's $7.5 billion Plan Colombia. We were led to believe that after the United States anted up their portion, European nations and others would follow suit and largely fund critical economic and social programs. Unfortunately, that funding has not come forth. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a complex situation. Pastrana's government is fighting two major insurgence groups and a plethora of well-financed and technologically advanced drug trafficking organizations, a combination that has been deadly to both our nations. Moreover, members in the military forces have been accused of human rights abuses and corruption. The GAO report we are going to discuss today has raised more concerns for me. Although they believe that U.S. assistance has helped, they have also reported that there have been problems with planning, budgeting and implementation of the $1.3 billion. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the hearing today and to the testimony so that I can get a better understanding of how we can make our assistance to Colombia work as efficiently and effectively as possible. We must work to protect our children and families from the scourge of drug addiction and abuse. Thank you very much. Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman. I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I voted against Plan Colombia, and it's not because I am against helping Colombia. I would like to see us put more into strengthening the rule of law which help Colombian citizens and help promote a peace process there, and nor is it because I am against our taking aggressive and bold action against drugs abuse, but I think that the most effective and proven way to go is for us to spend more in the United States on the demand side as opposed to the supply side. But the real reason that I opposed the funding for Plan Colombia is the repeated evidence of human rights abuse and U.S. dollars going to oppress the people of Colombia. We have a GAO report that we're going to be discussing today. It confirms my initial concerns that, in essence, it says that Plan Colombia, in my interpretation, is nothing more than a plan to put all of our eggs in one flawed basket. The ONDCP warns us that growers are now using higher yielding varieties of coca leaf and have become more efficient in processing leaves into cocaine. In the past, our attacks on the drug supply resulted in an adaptation that left us with a more potent problem than we had before. Another problem that this report reveals is that Plan Colombia could simply result in American support for human rights abuses abroad. The report noted concerns expressed by U.S. Embassy officials that the Colombian National Police does not always provide documentation about its use of counternarcotics assistance. We're begging for trouble. There are many more problems with this effort that the report revealed. Colombia is not ready to handle their share of the management of the program. It may take years for Colombia to implement the systems and develop the staff necessary to take control. Moreover, Colombia has not raised its share of the funds necessary to successfully prosecute the plan. I want to call your attention to an article that was in the L.A. Times on October 11th that says that the massive U.S.- backed antidrug offensive in Colombia is hitting major funding roadblocks with European countries refusing to ante up more than $2 billion, and the Colombians themselves aren't sure that they have the means to put up an additional $4 billion. The reluctance of international donors and the seeming inability of the Colombians to fund the $7.5 billion aid effort, ``leaves the American stepping up to the plate and everybody else walking away from it,'' said a senior Clinton administration official. If the Colombians and others don't come up with the money soon, the ambitious program could be limited to the $1.3 billion and largely military assistance from the United States, which administration officials say cannot put more than a dent in the country's powerful drug trade. In Chicago, there was a hearing of what is called a tribunal of opinion that was conducted by the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern School of Law on September 22nd and 23rd, with very prestigious members of our legal and human rights community as hearers of testimony. And I'll tell you I met with a number of people who lived in a small village of Santo Domingo where 7 children and 10 adults were murdered. It was 19 civilians killed and 25 others injured in Santo Domingo, Colombia on December 13, 1998. And there is credible evidence that U.S. Government funds, which were made available to the Colombian military, were responsible. Now, I want to tell you, I met with a mother who showed me pictures of her five children, three of whom are dead as a result of this bombing. This woman is not a terrorist, she's not a guerrilla, she is a woman living with her children in a village that probably was bombed as a result of U.S. aid to Colombia. I think we need to step back from this, figure out if we're really going to achieve the results that we want. I think we will not. And see if we want to be complicit in the kinds of atrocities that I think there is growing evidence is happening in Colombia using U.S. taxpayer dollars. I certainly don't want to be part of that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. Additional opening statements? If there are no additional opening statements, Mrs. Mink moves that the record be left open for a period of 2 weeks for further submissions of statements. Without objection, so ordered. I am pleased now to recognize two individuals who really need no introduction but make up our first distinguished panel this afternoon. First is the chairman of our House Government Reform Committee, we're a subcommittee of the full committee, and that's the honorable Dan Burton from Indiana. And the second individual is the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman. Pleased to recognize the Chair of our full committee first. I guess that would be the proper order. You're recognized and welcome, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Chairman Mica. My daughter right now is in surgery and I've got to catch a plane, so I will submit my full statement for the record as well as exhibits that I would like to have shown, but I do have to leave. I would just like to make a couple of points that I think are extremely important. Chairman Gilman and you and I, Speaker Hastert for the past 4 or 5 years, have been working on the Colombian problem. And I think it's important that all the members of the subcommittee and anybody who's paying attention really understand the full scope of the problem. The human rights atrocities that have taken place down there, Ms. Schakowsky, are wrong. Those have not come at the hands of the Colombian National Police; it's been the Colombian military. One of the problems we have with Plan Colombia is that we're giving a disproportionate share of the money to the very people who have been perpetrating these human rights violations. We should be giving that money to the Colombian National Police. Now this was a decision of the administration and the State Department. I don't know why they're doing it. In addition to that, we're sending helicopters down there finally, and the people who know how to fly those helicopters are the Colombian National Police. The people who know how to maintain those helicopters are the Colombian National Police. Yet the overwhelming amount, a majority of the aid and equipment, is going down to the people who are perpetuating these human rights atrocities. I don't understand it. General Serrano and his successors have pledged to make sure that they fight this war in as humane a way as possible and protect the civilian population, but that's not what Plan Colombia is all about. Bogota, Colombia, is closer to us right now than it is to Mr. Ose's district. That's how close we're talking about. Mr. Cummings said a while ago that the problems in Baltimore are out of control. Some of his colleagues in the legislative branch of the city council say that one out of eight people are addicted to heroin. It is a national tragedy. We're losing 17,000 people a year to drug addiction. They're dying. Now, we saw just recently an overwhelming outpouring of concern about Firestone tires, 100 people died. And it's tragic, 100 people. 17,000 are dying a year from drug addiction and overdoses; and this is a major, major problem. We have to deal with the problem in Colombia as well as here. I'm for education, as you talked about, Mr. Cummings and Ms. Schakowsky. I'm for treatment centers. I think that's important, too. But you've got to go to the source. Can you imagine dealing with the people who had suffered from the Firestone tragedy by saying, we're going to help you folks out, but we're not going to deal with the production problem at Firestone. Of course, you have to go to the source of the problem. We have to go to the source of the problem in Colombia. The FARC guerrillas have sanctuary down there right now. They can go out and attack and kill people. They have taken the Colombian National Police and mayors down there, they have burned their wives and children alive. They have cut their heads off--talk about human rights violations--and they played soccer with them in the town square. They put their heads up on pipes to scare everybody to death. That's how bad the situation is. Now, you know there's a commercial in Indiana that I've seen where a guy is working on a transmission. And--not a transmission but an auto engine. He's got a Fram oil filter. He says, you know you can change your oil filter and save your engine. You can pay me now or pay me later. I really believe that if we don't deal with the Colombian tragedy and problem down there now, down there, we're going to rue the day we didn't. A couple of other things that ought to be thought about. The largest supplier of oil to the United States that we know is in an energy difficult situation right now is Venezuela. It's right on the border of Colombia. Just yesterday in--was it--where was it--in Ecuador, we believe, FARC guerrillas flew in there in a helicopter and took five civilians out and made them hostages for ransom. So they're now going beyond their borders. This whole area is a tinderbox down there. The people who are running the FARC guerrillas are Communists who have been working with Fidel Castro for training. This is not baloney. This is a fact. So we really have to deal with that problem down there. The Panama Canal which we used to defend with our military is defenseless now. The narcotic guerrillas know it is 150 miles away. So we've got a problem with Venezuela as far as our oil supplies. The whole area down there is at risk. Mr. Pastrana, the President down there, has given sanctuary to the FARC guerrillas so they can go out and attack and go back in and be protected. We either help now or we're going to pay the price later. We're going to pay the price probably with more military expenses than we can visualize today. We may even have American troops down there, whether we want to or not. Certainly if we don't deal with it we're not going to stem the tide of heroin and cocaine coming into Baltimore, MD. So, yes, we need to educate. Yes, we need to have programs to rehabilitate people where we can. But we've got to go to the source and fight those people and stop the drug production. Because, if we don't, it's going to continue to come in here. You and I know that the way to get carriers of drugs is at to take an African American child in Baltimore or some place and they get him hooked and they make that kid the person who's going to carry the drugs and get other people hooked. So as long as the profitability is there and as long as the production is there down in Colombia, they're going to continue to do that. We've got to do something about it. Now, Mr. Beers, who is here from the State Department, the Plan Colombia sounded good. Not everything we wanted but it sounded good at the beginning. Then Chairman Gilman and I at the International Operations Committee about fell out of our chairs when we found out they were cutting back the number of helicopters down there. They're giving most of them to the military who we know are prepared to use them and who we know is violating the human rights. They're not giving to the CNP, and they're not going to get there until 2002. Now, they're going to tell you today they changed that. I'd like to know--I hope Mr. Beers will tell you why they're changing that timetable. But even if they change the timetable, they have to have competent pilots to fly those planes and mechanics to work on them, and they don't in the military. They do in the CNP. So the State Department and the administration in my opinion needs to rethink Plan Colombia, take into consideration human rights atrocities and violations and make sure we're putting the money and the equipment where it's going to do good as well as protecting those women and kids you're talking about down there. I'm sorry I didn't have time to go into my whole statement, but I think you got the gist of what I feel. Thank you very much. Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Without objection his entire statement will be made part of the record, and we'll excuse you at this time. Pleased to recognize now the Chair of our International Relations Committee and also member of our panel, the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman. STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Chairman Mica, my colleagues. I want to thank you for conducting this extremely important hearing on a vital area, an area vital to our drug war and our Nation's policy on elimination of drug abuse. The Clinton administration has been given $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars to help Colombia in our common struggle against illicit drugs, and yet there's an obvious lack of clarity and direction coming from the administration about our national policy at this critical point of implementation of our military aid to Plan Colombia. Uncertainty can spell serious trouble down the road for our vital national interests in Colombia. What we need from our policymakers is clarity and strong leadership. A clear, definable and achievable objective must be articulated regarding our U.S. policy in Colombia. The policy must be articulated in a manner in which the American people can readily understand it and, in turn, support it. Colombia's democratic survival from the onslaught of narco- terrorism and the destruction of its massive cocaine and heroin production network are important goals in this vital national interest. We owe our young people and the democratic Colombia Government help in this common, two-prong fight which we cannot afford to lose. Once the American people understand fully understand these goals, we're going to have to convince them that we can and will achieve success in Colombia. We recently met with General Gilbar of the Colombian National Police, and he told us that he sees in sight the achievement of a goal of a drug-free Colombia. We've already done so in part by helping the Colombian National Police elite anti-drug unit do the drug fighting job themselves, without expending any American lives in this not-so-far-off land. Bear in mind Bogota is only 3 hours away from us from Miami, and what happens there can affect all of us here in our own Nation. Colombia does not want, and has never asked for, American blood to be shed on its battlefields as that beleaguered nation faces a potential ``narco state'' status. If, along with the rest of the world, especially Europe, we help them with appropriate aid, they can win. So let us be perfectly clear and let's not be fooled by that old ``it's another Vietnam'' canard some know is trying to sell to the American people. On the military front, the Colombians have only asked for training and received some of the mechanical means-- helicopters, for example, they don't want troops--to help them reach parts of their rugged countryside which is controlled by the narco-guerrillas and used in producing illicit drugs intended for use by Americans and by the European continent. Today, more than 80 percent of the cocaine that enters our Nation, 80 percent, along with 70 percent of the heroin sold or seized on our streets and destroying our youngsters comes from that remote, inaccessible area of Colombia. We must help them destroy those drugs so that in turn we know who is financing the self-sufficient insurgency that threatens their very own democracy. For years we've worked side by side with the elite anti- drug unit of the Colombian National Police [CNP], to destroy the powerful Cali and Medillin drug cartels. Mr. Chairman I don't know if you had an opportunity to see the--there was a special documentary the other night. I thought it was very forceful. I hope that my committee will have an opportunity to see a replay of that. It really showed explicitly the millions of dollars that the drug lords were earning each and every day from this illicit trade. These courageous police officers who are fighting the drug war have suffered nearly 5,000 deaths in their war over a 10- year period--5,000 officers killed. General Serrano, who recently retired, said he was sick of having to attend the funerals of his close associates. Just recently, newer organizations controlling 80 percent of the coca business from Colombia were taken out by the CNP, working with our own outstanding DEA officers. Just like in our Nation, drug fighting is a primary law enforcement function in Colombia. It's not a military function. With a few of the new, well-armed, high performance utility helicopters which we recently provided, these courageous drug- fighting police, the CNP, have destroyed record-shattering areas of coca for cocaine, along with opium, essential for heroin production. As a result of these relatively inexpensive police efforts, compared to the billions in annual societal loss here from these illicit drugs coming from Colombia, we see record high prices for cocaine with very low purity on our streets today. We'll soon see the same disruption with Colombian heroin. This in turn will mean fewer American children will be able to buy and become addicted or overdose on these kind of deadly drugs. The Colombian drug traffickers are screaming loudly about the anti-drug police onslaught with their new drug-fighting equipment used against their illicit crops which they pay the narco-guerrilla insurgency so handsomely to protect. We're making major progress. The Peruvian Government confirms its progress in Colombian opium reduction, reports that the Colombian traffickers know is rapidly expanding opium production in several departments in that neighboring nation where it was unknown before. We need a Peruvian plan of attack as well for this administration and a better regional game plan or we'll be headed to failure as they move from one area to another. And we need, too, my colleagues, to combine this wise path of supporting the Colombian police in the fight against drugs. Those efforts will in turn help drain the swamp of the vast profits from illicit drugs which in turn finance that civil insurgency that is threatening Colombian democracy. I remember when Congressman Rangel and I visited Colombia many years ago. We visited the plaza in Bogota, and we saw the Supreme Court which had been burned down by the drug traffickers as they attacked the whole court system and were virtually holding hostage all of the judges, and they had to go in with tanks to get them free. These drug traffickers know no bounds. They go in every direction and attacking a government at its very vital organs is not beyond their means. We need to continue the wise path of supporting the Colombian police in the fight against drugs. Those efforts can help to fight the civil insurgency that threatens the very basis of Colombia. Our continued drug-fighting effort will level the playing field. It will also give the military in Colombia a chance to get its act together. Perhaps 1 day it will enable the military to fight the insurgency on an equal footing, consistent with respect for human rights just as the CNP anti-drug unit do. We were informed last week that, instead of the two new Blackhawks for the CNP that were designated in an emergency supplemental which we passed earlier this June with a strong vote in the House, that the administration will fund only one of those choppers. They tell us they will go back and properly reconfigure the six operational Blackhawk police choppers down there already, as they should have been originally, with the $96 million we provided in 1998. I will not support any reprogramming request to cut the CNP's Blackhawk allotment, and I urge our colleagues not to do the same. It runs counter to the emergency supplemental conference report explicit language and good common sense. The Colombian drug police who are performing the job need more Blackhawks, not less. The administration, after years of neglect and in its near panic about a narco state emerging in Colombia as yet another looming foreign policy failure, has finally moved to get support for Plan Colombia, which has the strong support of our Speaker and in committee. Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for your support of all of these efforts. We need to learn from the mistakes made in providing aid to our CNP allies and to get it right this time, and I look forward to hearing today from the administration witnesses with regard to that enormous challenge today. With regard to the concerns about human rights violations, I want to remind the committee that in more than 10 years of our Nation's assistance to the anti-drug police in Colombia there has been no credible evidence of any human rights abuse by the PLANTE, the CNP anti-drug unit. So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for this hearing and for focusing attention on what should be done in Colombia at this very important junction. Thank you. Mr. Mica. I thank you, Chairman Gilman; and I applaud your efforts. We also appreciate your testimony. You're also a member of this subcommittee and invite you to join the panel if you would. I also applaud you for your efforts to seek peace and resolution not only in this area under consideration today, Colombia. You've done an incredible job and been persistent for some 6 years now there and in the Mideast, and I know how frustrated you must feel today with both areas in a state of chaos. It concerns us all. But, again, we thank you; and I'll excuse you at this time. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Let me, if I may, call our second panel of witnesses today. They consist of Mr. Jess T. Ford, who's Associate Director of International Relations and Trade Issues with the General Accounting Office; the Honorable Rand Beers, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Narcotics under the State Department; Brigadier General Keith Huber, who is the Director of Operations for U.S. Southern Command. And although we have printed Mr. Brian Sheridan, Assistant Secretary of Defense, he has been called with the current crisis in the Mideast I believe to the White House; and we have Anna Marie Salazar, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Drug Enforcement Policy and Support at DOD. If you all could come forward. This is, as you know, an investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House of Representatives. In that regard, we do swear in our witnesses. If you would stand. Raise your right hands, please. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. We welcome the witnesses. We will be glad to hear your oral testimony. We're going to run the clock. Try to limit it to around 5 minutes if we can. We do welcome any submissions to the subcommittee for the record, and the entire statement will be made part of the record upon request. With that, let me recognize first Mr. Jess T. Ford, Director of the International Affairs and Trade Issues Office of the General Accounting Office. Mr. Ford, you're recognized. STATEMENTS OF JESS T. FORD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND TRADE ISSUES, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE; RAND BEERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; BRIGADIER GENERAL KEITH HUBER, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND; AND ANA MARIE SALAZAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEFENSE DRUG ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND SUPPORT Mr. Ford. Congressman Mica, Congresswoman Mink and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the work you requested on the counternarcotics efforts of the United States and Colombia. Today I will highlight the preliminary findings from our ongoing review on U.S. assistance to Colombia. We plan to issue or report early next week. I plan this morning this afternoon to discuss three broad issues: first, how the drug threat has changed in recent years; second, the problems the United States has had in providing its assistance to Colombia in the past; and, third, the challenges that the United States and Colombia face in reducing the illegal drug activities. In October 1999, the Colombian Government announced a $7.5 billion plan known as Plan Colombia, which among other things proposes the reduction of cultivation, processing and the distribution of narcotics by 50 percent over the next 6 years. Colombia has pledged to provide about $4 billion to support the plan and called on the international community, including the United States, to provide the remaining $3.5 billion. To assist this effort, in July of this year, the United States agreed to provide about $860 million to Colombia for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 in addition to the regular U.S. assistance program estimated at about $330 million for fiscal year 2000-2001. U.S. counternarcotics assistance to Colombia has doubled since 1999. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to review the threat issue because it's already been discussed several times. It's commonly known that there's a major threat in Colombia. It is, in fact, a major producer of cocaine entering the United States. I think what I'll try to focus on is the two main issues related to our assistance effort. The United States has had longstanding problems in providing counternarcotics assistance to Colombian law enforcement and military agencies involved in counternarcotics activities. Although U.S.-provided assistance such as aircraft, boats and training has enhanced Colombian counternarcotics capabilities, it has sometimes been of limited utility because the United States did not provide spare parts or the funding necessary to operate and maintain them to the extent possible for conducting counternarcotics operations. Moreover, the U.S. Embassy has made little progress in implementing a plan to have the Colombian National Police assume more responsibility for the aerial eradication program which currently requires the assistance of costly U.S. contractors. U.S. Embassy officials also expressed concern that the National Police have not always provided documentation to show the use of some of the assistance. The United States and Colombian Governments face a number of management and financial challenges in implementing Colombia's strategy to reduce cultivation over the next 6 years. Although both governments are taking actions to address the challenges, at this point the total cost and activities required to meet the plan's goals remain unknown, and significantly reducing drug activities may take several years. U.S. aid agencies, including the Department of State, Department of Defense and USAID, are still developing comprehensive plans for eradication and interdiction activities and alternative development programs. However, negotiating for the manufacture and delivery of major equipment, such as helicopters, is ongoing and staffing new programs in Colombia will take time. As a result, agencies do not expect to have many of the programs to support Plan Colombia in place until late 2001. Officials from State and DOD are now determining how the Blackhawk and Huey II helicopters mandated by the Congress for Colombia will be equipped and configured. They do not yet know if the funding plan for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to support Plan Colombia will be sufficient. In addition, State officials have begun planning for funding in fiscal year 2002 and beyond to continue the plan. While estimates have not been completed, these officials have stated that substantial funding may be needed. Colombia is relying on international donors in addition to the United States to fund Plan Colombia. But much of the support has yet to materialize. To date, the Colombian Government has not shown that it has the detailed plans and funding necessary to achieve these goals. Colombia faces continuing challenges associated with its political and economic instability fostered by its longstanding insurgency and the need for the police and the military to comply with human rights standards. As evidenced by past U.S. counternarcotics assistance programs, the United States has not always provided the necessary support to operate and maintain the equipment to the extent possible to help counter the illegal drug activities. If these problems continue, the dramatic increase in U.S. support for Plan Colombia may not be used in the most effective way. At a minimum, if the United States and Colombia do not follow through with their commitments under Plan Colombia and the international donor community does not support appeals for additional assistance, Plan Colombia may not be able to succeed as envisioned. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.017 Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Ford. We will withhold questions until we have heard from all of the panelists. I would like to recognize Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Narcotics, Department of State. Welcome, and you are recognized. Mr. Beers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Mink and other members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I will offer a brief oral statement at this point in time and focus on the implementation of our U.S. Government assistance to Plan Colombia, a broad-gauged, multifaceted effort by the Colombian Government to deal with counternarcotics trafficking, economic development and government capacity. Since the emergency supplemental for Colombia was passed and signed into law in July, United States and Colombian planners have worked together to develop a comprehensive plan for the implementation of our $1.3 billion. The result is a comprehensive Interagency Action Plan that defines the implementation of our support to Colombia's counternarcotics effort and provides a mechanism to coordinate the various elements of our aid, particularly regarding eradication and alternative development. With the Government of Colombia's planning document in hand, U.S. Government agencies are now refining their draft implementation plans. In an interagency action plan the Government of Colombia has laid out an organizational structure which will assist in coordinating the counternarcotics programs with the other elements of Plan Colombia. Representatives of the Colombian police, the military, PLANTE, the agency which administers alternative development programs, and the social security agency will coordinate with mayors and Governors at the local and regional level. They will work under the supervision of a national technical committee consisting of representative governmental ministries such as PLANTE, Social Security and the security community. U.S. Embassy representatives will coordinate with this committee and at the local levels with the Embassy's Military Group, Narcotics Affairs Section, Drug Enforcement Administration personnel addressing counternarcotics matters. The Colombian technical committee in turn will report to an interagency Colombian Government body at the vice ministerial level, and finally to the heads of the ministries involved. Senior members of the Embassy country team will handle bilateral issues at this level. U.S. representatives will coordinate operational issues within the Embassy and with lead responsibility for specific projects generally falling to those agencies responsible for the project's funding. The initial 2-year phase of the Interagency Action Plan focuses on southern Colombia. It will start with the rapid expansion of social programs and institutional strengthening. Interdiction efforts will follow shortly thereafter, and eradication efforts will commence by the end of the year. Alternative development and other programs to strengthen local communities will expand into neighboring regions where counternarcotics programs will continue regionally. During the first phase, these regional efforts will be accompanied at the national level by public outreach and programs meant to prepare for the eventual expansion of the programs nationwide. Eradication in Putumayo will be conducted in two ways: In the areas dominated by small-scale cultivation of 3 hectares or less per farm, while voluntary eradication agreements, sometimes referred to as community pacts, will be concluded with the Government of Colombia and the individual communities, through this program small farmers will be given the opportunity to eradicate their illegal crops voluntarily as part of their development projects. Aerial eradication will continue to be important in the more remote areas of Putumayo, where large agribusiness coca plantations dominate the landscape and represent the largest area of cultivation in that troubled province. After the first 12 months of the eradication campaign in Putumayo, those communities in the alternative development area that have not opted to participate in the voluntary eradication program will be subject to possible aerial eradication. While eradication is getting under way, a Putumayo-focused interdiction effort will also be launched to disrupt the supply of important precursor chemicals into the region and the shipment of cocaine base and processed cocaine out of the region. Another principal activity will be the dismantling of processing labs. These activities should decrease the revenue potential of coca in the target area. When combined with the increased expense of time and money caused by eradication, the resulting distortions in the Putumayo coca market should encourage growers to abandon the crop as a source of income. An essential element of the interdiction efforts in southern Colombia will be the Colombian Army's counternarcotics brigade. While funding for its training and support was contained in the supplemental appropriation, our greatest contribution to the brigade, both in terms of the dollar amount and operational need, is helicopter lift. We are complying with the legislative mandate to purchase UH-60 Black Hawks through the DSCA, which provided us in the interagency community in September with the delivery estimates. These original delivery estimates that, by the Army's own admission, were conservative indicated that the Brigade's Black Hawks would begin to arrive in Colombia in October 2002, with all of the scheduled aircraft to be in Colombia by May 2003. These dates were based on worst-case assumptions that the contract would not be signed until April, and that the first aircraft would be completed 18 months later. I am pleased to report today, as we have indicated to committee staffs earlier, that we have worked out a deal with Sikorsky, with DSCA and with the Government of Colombia to establish a new timetable that, depending upon having the contracts signed no later than December 15th, will put all of the UH-60's in Colombia in 2001, with the first helicopters arriving in Colombia at the beginning of July 2001. We currently expect the Brigade's contingent of Huey II helicopters to be fully fielded within 2 years with the first aircraft arriving in mid-2001. These are current contractor estimates, and as was the case with the UH-60's, the delivery schedule may change as details are finalized, but we expect, and we have spent a great deal of time on this, that these are accurate and will be the final dates. The exact delivery dates for all of the aircraft have not been as precisely determined as the Black Hawks, but the aircraft will follow as quickly as possible. With respect to the Huey IIs, they will follow those Huey IIs that are planned for the Colombian National Police, and I am pleased to report that we have already signed the contract with Bell and have taken delivery of the first Huey II kits in order to ensure that the police have their helicopters as quickly as possible. The Government of Colombia has committed itself to making an effort to resolve that country's problems. With our assistance package of $1.3 billion, the United States has pledged much- needed support. While teams in both countries continue to plan and adjust operational modalities, the implementation process is now under way, and I am confident of the success of these programs and Plan Colombia, and I look forward to working closely with this Congress, which has been supportive of this effort, as we continue to address these critical issues. This concludes my statement, and I am prepared to answer questions. Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will withhold questions unless we have heard from the other witnesses. [The prepared statement of Mr. Beers follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.023 Mr. Mica. Next we have Anna Marie Salazar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense. Welcome, and you are recognized. Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department's role on the support of U.S. assistance to Plan Colombia. Unfortunately Mr. Sheridan wanted me to pass on his regrets for not being here this afternoon, and I ask that his written statement be submitted for the record. Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know it has been a pretty rough day at the Department of Defense today, and due to the tragic attack on the USS Cole, the Secretary of Defense has asked Mr. Sheridan and required his presence at the Department of Defense. However, he did ask me to share briefly his thoughts with you. A couple of points in regards to the implementation of the supplemental in general. First, as Mr. Sheridan has testified previously on the Hill, I believe about five times in the last year, execution of Plan Colombia will be a challenge because of the extent and the complexity of the package. There will be setbacks. However, many of our initial estimates on the program and implementation of the program, as we have provided in his written testimony, are by nature conservative, but this is a sound plan. It is responsive to our Colombian counterparts, and it is worth doing, and we will continue to work very closely with the interagency in order to ensure fast implementation of the program. With that said, the Department has moved quickly in the execution of the program where existing contracts supported such actions, and, as an example, the President signed the bill on July 13. Mr. Sheridan signed the Department's implementation of Plan Colombia on July 24th. Three days later on July 27, the U.S. Army 7th Special Forces Group commenced its training of the second Colombian counternarcotics battalion. Another example is we are in discussions with the Colombians to see if they will have individuals available so we can start training helicopter pilots beginning November 1. So in the areas where we can move fast, where there is existing contracts, and where there is Colombian availability and individuals to train, we will rapidly implement. With respect to the GAO report, we agree with the general comments in the draft report, and we have provided formal responses to the GAO. As I just stated, execution of supplemental programs, including delivery of the associated support, will be a challenge. This is not a surprise. We are continuing to look at the 506 drawdown process with a focus on improving the delivery of counterdrugs support, and we are working closely with the State Department. That being said, equipment availability will continue to be problematic as the Department does not have large inventory of some of the equipment being requested by our Colombian counterparts. The supplemental has provided the State Department and Department of Defense with funding and authorities to contract out the purchase of much of the equipment required by the Colombians, and as a general rule contracting for new equipment will be much more efficient than using a 506 drawdown since we can go directly to the source and not depend on existing military inventories for equipment that may or may not exist or we may not have sufficient quantity. With that, I will conclude my remarks. I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to answering any questions. Mr. Mica. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sheridan follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.036 Mr. Mica. Did you have a statement, General Huber? General Huber. No, Mr. Chairman, I did not. I read Mr. Sheridan's statement. He covered the DOD responsibilities. I would like to make a few comments with your permission. Mr. Mica. Please proceed. General Huber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this invitation and privilege to be present before you in this very important meeting. I would like to say that my lane of responsibility is fairly narrow, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, from visiting Southern Command headquarters in Miami. As the Director of Operations I supervise the equipping and the training of the counternarcotics brigade. We concluded with the first battalion last December. We are currently in progress with the second battalion. We began at the end of last month the training of the brigade staff, and we project the training of the third battalion to begin in late January, and I am eager to answer any questions that you might have that fall into my operational role as the Director of Operations at Southern Command. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will proceed now with questions. First of all, Mr. Ford, let me just go over the report with you. A couple of the points, on page 3, first of all, you gave examples that the helicopters that the Department of State provided to the Colombian National Police did not have sufficient spare parts or the funding necessary to operate and maintain them; is that correct? Mr. Ford. Yes, sir. We have identified several cases since 1998. Mr. Mica. Mr. Beers, is that still the situation, or do you have that corrected? Mr. Beers. Sir, there are two issues here to look at. I am not in disagreement that there are some spare part shortages, but there are input functions and output functions. With respect to the output function, which is the operational readiness rate of the Colombian National Police, Colombian National Police helicopters continue to operate at a 70 percent operational readiness rate, which is not at all out of line with the normal operational readiness rate of the U.S. military. So without denying that there are some spare parts shortages, they are still flying those planes. Mr. Mica. Mr. Ford, page 3, moreover the U.S. Embassy has made little progress implementing a plan to have Colombian National Police assume more responsibility for the aerial eradication program; is that the case? Through when? Through 1999? Mr. Ford. Beginning late 1998, the narcotics affairs section at the Embassy developed a plan to turn over the aerial eradication program over to the National Police. It was meant to be a 3-year effort. The current U.S. contractors down there, I believe, were supposed to help train the Colombians so that they could take over that role. Basically I guess the issue has been overcome by events. Given that Plan Colombia, it is a secondary priority there. Mr. Mica. What is the situation, Mr. Beers? Is this correct as addressed? Mr. Beers. The facts are correct, sir. With respect to the nationalization effort, we began discussions with the Colombians in roughly that timeframe. We have had some modest transition in respect to the opium poppy effort where we have transferred six aircraft and essentially supported the Colombian National Police in the opium poppy eradication effort; but with respect to the coca effort, that transition has not occurred. We have an issue of the balance of using funds between a continuation of the current effort and a shift from the current effort to a Colombian effort, and the funds were simply not available to continue the eradication effort and also at the same time begin the process of the transition to the Colombian National Police. I wish that we had that funding. We did not, and so it has not happened. Mr. Mica. Well, the GAO report also says State planning documents indicate it has not budgeted funds to train pilots and mechanics, provide logistical support and support the operations of certain U.S.-provided helicopters. Mr. Ford, how current is that? Mr. Ford. Well, the most current case is really a funding issue having to do with the transfer of I believe it was 18 Huey-1N helicopters which were intended to support the counternarcotics battalion. Mr. Mica. That was as of? Mr. Ford. They were delivered between November and, I believe, March 2000 with the intent that they would be used by the battalion by late April or early May. However, State basically ran out of funds, and they basically had to put the program in abeyance. Mr. Mica. Why didn't we reprogram money to take care of this situation, Mr. Beers? Mr. Beers. We did not reprogram money because we were waiting for the supplemental to be funded. We had reason to believe from the early consultations in January and February when the plan was proposed that the funding would be available. We had programmed the 1N program on top of previously programmed moneys, so it was an additive program. When the funding was not available, we did not have the funding available within the overall program. Mr. Mica. So, General, you had your battalion trained, one battalion trained? General Huber. That is correct. Mr. Mica. Were they deployed? General Huber. Yes, Mr. Chairman, although they had to use ground mobility means. They did receive some support from the National Police helicopters, but that first battalion located at Tres Esquinas---- Mr. Mica. When was their training finished? General Huber. Last December. Mr. Mica. When were they first deployed? General Huber. They were deployed in ground operations immediately at the conclusion of training. They have not simply stayed put at Tres Esquinas. Mr. Mica. Do you have the air capability to move them around yet? General Huber. No, sir, we do not. Mr. Mica. OK, thank you. Let me ask this question, if I may. Someone told me that they are going to start training pilots November 1, begin training helicopter pilots. Now, in the report that GAO supplied, they had trained helicopter pilots, and then they laid them off; is that correct? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, that is correct. We had trained the pilots. They are a combination of contract and army, Colombian Army, pilots. Mr. Mica. Do we have them--but then they were laid off. Now we are training new pilots beginning November 1? Mr. Beers. No, they were rehired beginning late September. They have basically been retrained now, and they will be deploying to southern Colombia with the first eight of the 1Ns for training activities in Larandia in the latter half of October. Mr. Mica. So we have trained pilots? Mr. Beers. For the 1N, sir. Mr. Mica. How long will it take to train them for the Black Hawks? Mr. Beers. We have talked with the various training sources, and they will be available no later than the first of July for all of the Black Hawks, sir. Mr. Mica. Trained? Mr. Beers. Trained pilots and mechanics. Mr. Mica. We want to make sure that if we have Black Hawks next July, that we have pilots. Mr. Beers. Absolutely. Mr. Mica. I am very concerned about putting these--this equipment, particularly the helicopters, they are pretty expensive, and not having adequate defense, whether it is armor, which some were delivered without, and now I am concerned about the surface-to-air missile threat. Is there such a threat, Ms. Salazar? Ms. Salazar. We don't have any confirmed information. Mr. Mica. Do you think that it is possible? People who can build a submarine a couple of miles from Bogota, would it be possible for them to acquire surface-to-air missiles? Ms. Salazar. As we have stated in the past, it would not surprise us. Mr. Mica. General, do you feel that the equipment that is being ordered for the new equipment, the Black Hawks in particular, is sufficient to deter, say, a missile attack? General Huber. Sir, the State Department's configuration of those helicopters has indeed applied the proper measures to defeat surface-to-air missiles. Mr. Mica. That is not what I am told. Mr. Beers. Sir, that is current information. It may not have been when you were told that, but the configuration which we described has two features on it. Mr. Mica. We won't get into that in public, but I do want to sit down and be briefed on that. I am very concerned that we have an incident where this equipment which was sent down there to do the job is not capable of defending itself from an attack. Mr. Beers. We will be happy to brief you in private, sir. Mr. Mica. Let me defer at this point to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mrs. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The whole idea of this particular method of addressing our drug problem in the United States is very confusing and perplexing. I have every confidence that the moneys having been provided to you for the specific purposes as outlined in the appropriation bill will be fully and competently expended for the purposes intended. So I have no intention to question when you are going to do it and how, and the fact that it will be done as quickly as you humanly can get it in place as intended. I have no question with respect to the overall goals of Plan Colombia, which is to reduce the cultivation, processing and distribution of narcotics by 50 percent over 6 years--it is a laudable goal--and the request made by the Colombian Government to the United States to participate in it, and to that extent the U.S. Congress has appropriated $1.3 billion for that effort. My question really to the entire panel is over the years of our concern about Colombia and its importance with reference to our drug problem in the United States, would you be able to say that the expenditures of the funds thus far allocated to various segments of the U.S. Government have been effective in curbing the market of these drugs within the United States? And if not, why not? Mr. Beers. I will start, if I may. I think it is important in first asking the question to talk about the coca problem not as a Colombian-only problem, but to talk about it as a regional problem. The ability to supply the United States with coca is an Andean problem, it is not just a Colombian problem. It has become focused in Colombia as a result of some successes in Peru and Bolivia, and I think that those successes are noteworthy, and I think that those successes overall still balance out in the affirmative with respect to the overall success in the region as opposed to the dramatic increase of coca cultivation. Mrs. Mink. In the successes of Peru and Bolivia, to what extent was U.S. policy responsible for the successes that those two countries enjoyed? Mr. Beers. U.S. policy has been in support, but none of these programs and policies and efforts work without the cooperation of the host government concerned; and in both countries we had governments willing to deal with this problem and to go after it and to do it successfully. We have had some difficulty in Colombia in years past, despite the efforts of the Colombian National Police, but I believe we have now a Government in Colombia of like mind to the Governments in Peru and in Bolivia. With respect to the issue of the effect of the drug flow in the United States, I cannot report to you that the overall success in the Andean region has had the same direct effect within the United States because the United States is also not the only drug market in the world for cocaine use. And the ability of the traffickers to produce drugs and supply markets around the world is a pretty effectively managed illegal industry, and while I think it is fair to say that drugs have dropped within the United States over the last certainly 20 years from the worst period in the late 1970's, I am not going to try to assert to you that there is a direct relationship between the last 5 years of government assistance in Colombia or even in the Andean region for the decreases in drug use within the United States. But I do believe that our effort on the supply reduction side together with our effort on the demand-reduction side are two parts of a whole, both of which require the support of the U.S. Government, and only through both of which will we be successful. Mrs. Mink. What is the real, honest expectation that we can convey to the American people that this particular involvement of the United States in the Plan Colombia will yield the successes as we want to see them in the United States, and that is to reduce the supply? Mr. Beers. Yes, ma'am, I think this is the best opportunity that the United States and the world will ever have to deal with the cocaine problem. We have for the first time--and I have been working in this area for 12 years through three administrations in the State Department and at the White House, and I believe that through the position of the three Andean coca-producing countries, together with the United States, we have the best opportunity we will ever have, and that the goal of reduction of coca in Colombia by 50 percent over the next 5 years is a reasonable goal. It is exactly parallel to the already successful effort that has occurred in Peru. It is slightly less heroic than the effort that has occurred in Bolivia, which that same level of 50 percent has occurred in 2\1/2\ years, but it is also a tougher environment in Colombia. I think this is the best opportunity we will ever have. And that will show an effect in the United States. Mrs. Mink. The helicopters that are being built and transferred to Colombia, exactly to whom are they being delivered? Under whose management authority will these helicopters be flying and for what purpose? Mr. Beers. There are two groups of helicopters in the general sense. Some will go to the National Police, and some will go to the Colombian Army. A few planes, not helicopters, will go to the Colombian Air Force. The title for those planes will all be retained by the State Department, as is customary in these situations for counternarcotics purposes under the legislation under which you have authorized us to proceed. With respect to the Colombian Army, an organization which the State Department has not supported in the past, we are moving together with the Department of Defense, together with U.S. Southern Command, to make available to the Colombian Army up to 16, but it will probably be 13 or 14, Black Hawk helicopters, and up to 30, but it may not be that many, Huey II helicopters and 33 UH-1N helicopters. The ability for the Colombian Army to be able to have a fully air-mobile counternarcotics brigade and the first ability to do that lift will be before the end of 2001. With respect to the Colombian National Police, we will be providing one or two Black Hawk helicopters and 9 to 12 Huey IIs, in addition to the already existing Colombian National Police aircraft inventory, which includes Black Hawks and Huey IIs. They will be to support the Colombian National Police operations on a national basis. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. Let me yield now to Mr. Gilman, the gentleman from New York. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the panelists for coming here today to give their expert opinions. Let me first address a question or two to Mr. Beers. Mr. Beers, the antidrug police in Colombian have the urgent need, plus the pilots and the mechanics and infrastructure, to at this time, at this very important moment, to support two Black Hawks in the Plan Colombia emergency supplemental. The Army does not have such capacity. We are hoping that you will work to ensure that the first two, whatever total Black Hawks you agree on for Colombia, will go to the police. It will make sense when some of us are having trouble trying to decipher what the administration is doing with the Plan Colombia funds. So can I have your assurance that you will work in that direction? Mr. Beers. I can't give you my assurance that the first two Black Hawks will go to the Colombian National Police. We will certainly take your view into account. We have not decided yet on the final configuration of the two Black Hawks for the police. We have decided on the final configuration for the Black Hawks for the Colombian Army. That does not mean that the first two cannot be delivered to the police. We will have to bring all of that into account. We will have all of the Black Hawk helicopters delivered to Colombia, Army and police, before the end of calendar year 2001, in the third quarter essentially. Mr. Gilman. Before 2001 in the third quarter? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Mr. Gilman. When will your first delivery take place? Mr. Beers. July 1, 2001. That is the earliest possible date that Sikorsky can provide the helicopters. This is a delivery date that is faster than the delivery date that the administration offered to the Congress when we presented the original plan in February 2001, not having anything to do with the fact that it took another 6 months to pass the supplemental. Mr. Gilman. I think it is abominable to have to wait that long when they are confronted with such a critical problem, and I hope you will try to expedite that delivery and make certain that the delivery goes to the people who need them the most. They need these Black Hawks. I hope that you will take a good hard look at that, Mr. Secretary. The State Department recently turned down a CNP for night vision goggle training on one of its Black Hawks by the Colombian Army at no cost to our government. Why would we not want the CNP to maximize the use of the Black Hawks at night as well by giving them that kind of training? Mr. Beers. Sir, thank you for that question. That is a very good question. The reason, the effort, the focus, of our effort is to do what you want us to do, and one pilot in one plane does not make a night-capable effort. Our effort is directed at training the Black Hawk pilots, plural, for the Colombian National Police, and we are engaged in a program to provide the Colombian National Police with a Black Hawk pilot night vision capability. I will give you a full report on that as soon as we and the Colombian National Police have agreed to how we are going to do that. But it is the entire Black Hawk pilot fleet and not one pilot, sir. Mr. Gilman. We are not asking one pilot, we are asking that it provide the training. Mr. Beers. That is what I am talking about, sir. Mr. Gilman. Pilots need that training to do their work. Mr. Beers. That is our objective. Mr. Gilman. The Colombian Army General Montoya, who is in charge of the push into southern Colombia, recently told our committee staff that he couldn't get any defensive weapons other than an ineffective M-60 machine gun to protect his troops in our counternarcotics choppers. He cited the Leahy amendment as the reason. In addition, he told our staff, even these M-60's, which at best might scare the birds away, all burned up during the counternarcotics battalion training. Are we going to send the Army counternarcotics battalions who are trained into combat against the FARC, who are waiting and know they are coming, without adequate defensive weapons like an MK- 44 minigun to protect both them and our choppers? Isn't this a disaster waiting to happen? General Huber. Mr. Gilman, that is outside of my operational lane. As to the configuration of the lethal aid---- Mr. Gilman. Who is responsible for that? Is that Ms. Salazar? Ms. Salazar, how do you respond to that? Ms. Salazar. Yes, thank you, Mr. Gilman. As you know, the Department of Defense does not have authorities to allow us to purchase lethal aid. And in conversations with our Colombian counterparts, we are providing the necessary equipment for the counterdrug battalions. Mr. Gilman. Doesn't the statute provide for protection of the assistance that we provide? Ms. Salazar. Yes, but it very specifically states that we cannot provide lethal aid. Our statutes prohibits us from doing that. In the past you will find that you will not be able to provide lethal aid. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Beers, go ahead. What about proper protection? You are sending this equipment down and--you don't give them decent weapons. Mr. Beers. The authority rests with the Department of State. We, together with U.S. Southern Command, not General Huber's portion of Southern Command, but the planning side of U.S. Southern Command, and the Colombian Army have had an ongoing configuration discussion with one another from May until August to decide on what the armament ought to be for the aircraft. Mr. Gilman. What have you decided? Mr. Beers. It ought to be the M-60 machine gun and the MK- 44. Sir, this is agreed to by the Colombian Army and the best military experts in the U.S. military. This is not a State Department decision. Mr. Gilman. Mr. Beers, is the M-60 an effective defensive weapon? Mr. Beers. Sir, this is the judgment of the military professionals of two armies. Mr. Gilman. Well, that is not the opinions that we are receiving, and I hope that you will take another look at it. They find that the M-60's are ineffective, and they burned out on use. Ms. Salazar, who is in charge of U.S. military assistance in the Colombian Army? Is it your office or Mr. Beers? Ms. Salazar. We work closely with the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Gilman. But who is in charge? Ms. Salazar. We have the policy--the policy guidance over the programs, but, as you know, much of the authorities and the funding comes from the Department of State. Mr. Gilman. But who makes the decisions with regard to the kind of equipment, the military equipment? Mr. Beers. The military does, sir. The U.S. military does. We provide the money. They provide the decision process. Mr. Gilman. Who in the U.S. military makes that decision? Mr. Beers. It is Assistant Secretary Sheridan in consultation with the Chief of U.S. Southern Command. Mr. Gilman. General Huber, are you consulted with regard to that? General Huber. Yes, sir. All of the general officers in Southern Command have the ability to provide input as to the effectiveness of equipment purchases. Mr. Gilman. General Huber, who decided to put the M-60's on the Hueys? General Huber. Sir, I cannot answer that question. I was not involved in that discussion. Mr. Gilman. Who would be? General Huber. My understanding of that discussion, specifically as Mr. Beers stated, it was a combination of the people who are going to use the platform, the Colombian military, as well as the requirements strategy portion, Major General Soligan at Southern Command. Mr. Gilman. Major General Soligan? General Huber. Yes, sir. He was involved in that discussion as well. Mr. Gilman. In your opinion, is the M-60 a good defensive weapon? General Huber. Sir, I have had this discussion with Brigadier General Montoya, and he and I differ on that opinion. The M-60, when properly utilized and maintained, is an effective defensive weapon. Mr. Gilman. Did General Montoya say it was ineffective? General Huber. I will ask him that question next week. Mr. Gilman. Would you please do that so we have good defensive weapons for this expensive equipment? Mr. Ford, in July the State IG reported that NAS in Colombia didn't consult with the CNP on the configuration of helicopters we provided them. Has that changed today? Mr. Ford. I can't speak for the IG. I have seen the report. They did, in fact, report that there were communication problems between the NAS and the police; and beyond that, I don't have any expertise in terms of where they got their information. Mr. Gilman. Is that a problem that can be straightened out? Mr. Ford. I don't see why not. It is a matter of communications. They ought to be able to handle it. Mr. Gilman. Would you be able to handle it? Mr. Ford. I will be happy to pass it on. I am not the State IG. Mr. Gilman. Is that Mr. Beers again? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Sir, I think that the report accurately stated that there were some problems of consultation. I firmly believe that those problems have been corrected. I believe that the Black Hawk helicopters which you authorized and appropriated for us to buy did involve full consultations. I can assert absolutely that the Black Hawks that the Army and the police are currently discussing involve full consultations, as do all of the other aircraft in Plan Colombia. Mr. Gilman. It is gratifying to hear that, and I hope with all of this bureaucracy involved in trying to provide a proper offense against narcotics traffickers, you will work together to make sure that we have the most effective equipment and effective supplies to go to the people who are there on the front line. Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beers, I am wondering if you have any written response, or the State Department does, to the GAO report, because after listening to Mr. Ford and then listening to you, it is as if you didn't hear him, or everything was going along hunky-dory, and I am wondering if the Department of Defense--Ms. Salazar, you said there are written responses to the GAO report. Does the State Department have a written response? Mr. Beers. We commented on some of the elements of the GAO report. We welcome the opportunity for investigative organizations such as the GAO and the State IG to help us do a better job. We think that this was done in that spirit. Ms. Schakowsky. I am wondering if we can all get copies of your responses that you do have. Mr. Beers. You certainly may. Ms. Schakowsky. I am concerned about three things that I want to briefly ask about: the cost; the number of Americans involved; and human rights abuses. It concerns me that neither the international donors or Colombia itself is coming up with their share, it seems, of the $7.5 billion for Plan Colombia, but what I want to know is if they don't, do you foresee a request for yet more money and a larger share of the burden being funded by our U.S. taxpayers? Mr. Beers. I think that it is fair to say that the Government of Colombia has provided some--remember it is a 3- year program when they estimated it was $7.5 billion, and we are only in the first year of that program. So it is premature---- Ms. Schakowsky. If they don't come up with the money, do you foresee us paying for more of it? Mr. Beers. We will be back to the Congress, and we never said that we wouldn't be back to the Congress independent of all of the other assumptions in a 2002 request which will be for additional money to support Plan Colombia. The money that is already in the fiscal year 2001 budget in both the Department of Defense and State Department budget is also supportive of Plan Colombia. So there will be more requests for money to support Plan Colombia. This is not even a 3-year program, it is a 5-year program. Ms. Schakowsky. Will that amount that is requested be impacted by what the Europeans do or what--do or don't do or what the Colombians do or don't do? Mr. Beers. It will be impacted by all of the factors that are relevant, and that is one of them. Ms. Schakowsky. I am concerned about the number of Americans involved. I want to quote you from an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on September 24 of this year. It starts, ``The hotshot pilot swoops down at 200 miles per hour in his Vietnam-era crop duster gliding 50 feet over the coca field valleys he has been hired to destroy. For now he is part of a growing civilian army hired by Uncle Sam to help fight Colombia's war on drugs to be financed largely by the $1.3 billion in U.S. aid. While there are limits to the number of U.S. military people who will be involved in training Colombian troops, there are fewer restrictions on how many U.S. civilians can be hired by military contractors. `Every pirate, bandit, everyone who wants to make money on the war, they are in Colombia,' said one Congressional aide in Washington. He described efforts to snare contracts as a free-for-all. `This is what we call outsourcing a war,' he said, referring to the use of freelance help.'' Then it says, ``It is difficult to predict how many Americans will become part of the Colombian conflict, up to 100 special forces. Navy SEALS already are teaching Colombia's counternarcotics battalions. U.S. workers are operating ground radar stations. Civilian coca-spraying crews provide aircraft maintenance at Colombian bases. On any given day, 150 to 250 Americans are helping in Colombia's drug war. That number will go to 500 U.S. military personnel and 300 civilians under new caps that can be increased by the President.'' I am wondering that we as Americans ought to be concerned about this growing number and the extent to which this civilian-paid Army is a presence in Colombia; and what, if anything, we are going to need to do, as Representative Gilman was asking, to protect them? Mr. Beers. The Department of Defense has programs of its own, and I will only speak to the State Department and the Justice Department, since they are also part of this effort and are not here. We have in Colombia, in support of efforts that preceded Plan Colombia and that will continue into Plan Colombia, aircraft, a number of aircraft, some of which are flown by American pilots, but not all; some of which are maintained by American mechanics, but not all. Those will continue until we have completed the training process and turned this over to the Colombian National Police in order to ensure that we have a continuous and strong effort to deal with the eradication side. That is one element of the overall U.S. contractor, and I am not talking about Federal Government employees, I am only talking about contractors that will be involved. In addition to that, USAID, in support of programs which deal with alternative development and support for social justice within Colombia, will also have some U.S. contract personnel within Colombia. In addition to that, the Justice Department, in addition-- -- Ms. Schakowsky. Is there a number? Mr. Beers. You will have to get that number from AID, or I will get it for you. I don't know it off the tip of my tongue. In addition, the Justice Department will have some contract employees, but you are correct in saying that the limit currently is 300 contract U.S. employees within Colombia. That accounts for the State Department portion of that. There are also some contracted employees in the Department of Defense as well as uniformed personnel. Ms. Schakowsky. One more area that I wanted to get to. I am concerned about the human rights abuses and our reliance on the military, the same military that we are sending--and police, by the way, Black Hawks and Huey IIs and whatever. On August 15, 2000, six children were killed when the army opened fire for about 45 minutes. They claimed that guerillas were mixed up with some children. There has been no evidence. There were no shells near the children, no wounded or killed soldiers or guerillas. In the last couple of days, two human rights defenders were abducted in Colombia. There had been death threats. We continue to show our faith in the army and in the police where if--I have plenty of evidence here of cases where even the police who we say are beyond approach are not so, and keep funding them. The President certified that human rights criteria have been met. Why should we, in the face of this kind of evidence, believe that is so? Mr. Beers. Ma'am, with respect to the two incidents that you outlined, and particularly the tragic incident concerning the schoolchildren, we are as concerned as you are about those incidents, and we have asked the Colombian Government for an accounting of both of those incidents in order to understand what has happened and what has gone wrong if it appears that the initial evidence, with respect at least to the issue concerning the children, is, in fact, accurate. I am not in a position today to give you an answer to the Colombian response to us. I am not sure that we have received it yet. But I will get you that information as quickly as I possibly can. With respect to the efforts to support the police and the army and the Colombian military more generally, you all have been generous in your support for focusing on and dealing with the human rights situation in Colombia, and we take that funding support seriously; and we have both in the State Department and the Justice Department and the Defense Department put together a number of programs designed specifically to improve the overall human rights situation in Colombia. It will not happen overnight, and I am not here at this particular point in time to say that there is a perfect record on the part of the Government of Colombia. But I will say that I think we have demonstrated from the State Department's perspective that the situation has gotten better in Colombia, but there is still more work to be done, and the Colombians would agree with my statement. With respect to the President's certification, with all due respect, ma'am, he waived that certification. He did not certify. We were not in a condition to certify because the conditions had not been met by the Colombian Government. Those are a continuing subject of dialog between ourselves and the Government of Colombia. Every meeting with senior-level officials of the Government of Colombia that I have participated in has involved that subject as a major element of that discussion. Ms. Schakowsky. What is the significance then of waiving? If the aid packages are conditioned on the President's certification, does that mean that although we are not able to certify, we are going to continue funding even in the face of continued human rights abuses? What status is that? Mr. Beers. The provisions of law, as I understand them, are that we are required in every fiscal year in which we expend money for Plan Colombia to either certify or waive those requirements. So the original waiver that the President signed was for fiscal year 2000. Before we can obligate any money in fiscal year 2001, we will again be required to certify or to waive those requirements. Of those human rights requirements, three were factual: Has the Government of Colombia done a specific act? The other three were, having done that specific act, have they, in fact, implemented the intent of that act over a period of time? And the second three issues are written--currently written in very absolute terms, fully implemented, completely done, and at this particular point in time, I think if you asked us today to make a determination, we would now be in a position to say that we believe that the Colombian Government has carried out the three specific acts that you have asked them to carry out. But we are not in a position today, and we will continue to work with the Government of Colombia to get them to be in a position to say that they have, in fact, implemented the intent of those specific acts. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady, and I now recognize Mr. Ose from California. Mr. Ose. Mr. Beers, it is my recollection that the supplemental we passed in July had a--had some specific reporting requirements in terms of the actual strategy that was going to be used in Colombia. What I am trying to figure out--I know that there was a time line on that. Was it 60 days that we were supposed to have that back? Mr. Beers. I believe that is correct. Mr. Ose. Has that been delivered? Mr. Beers. It has not, to the best of my knowledge, as of yesterday morning. I am not sure today. It is in final preparation in the White House at this time, sir. Mr. Ose. Who in the White House might we call? Mr. Beers. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is the office which has been assigned responsibility for drafting that strategy, sir. Mr. Ose. The strategy is actually being reduced to black and white? Mr. Beers. The strategy is drafted. It is in final clearance. Mr. Ose. So we are going to get it shortly? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Mr. Ose. We talked about the aid going to Colombia. How do we measure its efficacy? Do we measure it by the price on the street? Do we measure it by immigrant flows? How do we measure whether or not our aid is working? Mr. Beers. Sir, I am a believer that the best measurement of this kind of a program is what I talked about earlier, which is the output function. The output function from Colombian drug traffickers is how much coca do they grow and process and export from Colombia. And the principal benchmark which we use is the number of coca hectares under cultivation, and that is the measurement against which the 50 percent reduction is designed to focus. Mr. Ose. Do we track how much comes north? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Mr. Ose. That is what DOD does? Mr. Beers. That is what the Intelligence Community does, sir. Mr. Ose. How do they do that? Mr. Beers. It is a classified program, but in general terms, through various forms of intelligence, they look at what information is available with respect to the movement of coca to the United States. Mr. Ose. So we have assets in the area that monitor the go- fast boats? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, planes, land transport, all of that. Mr. Ose. Do we have locations in the area--we do have--we have those forward-operating locations? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. We also have ships at sea. Mr. Ose. Now, if I recall correctly, back in June, Ms. Salazar, you were before us, and you were talking in particular--I think the three forward-operating locations were Manta, Aruba and Curacao? Ms. Salazar. And now El Salvador. Mr. Ose. There were some problems with each of those. Having pulled out of Howard, we had to make some improvements to the runways and taxiways at Manta and also some aprons at Aruba and Curacao. Did the Colombian supplemental contain funding for those improvements? Ms. Salazar. Yes, under the MILCON authorities for those improvements. We will be coming back for fiscal year 2002 for the improvements for El Salvador. Mr. Ose. I want to focus right now on the Manta improvements. As I recall from your testimony in June, the Air Force was on the verge of a contract for the runway and taxiway improvements like the middle of July. Ms. Salazar. Correct. Mr. Ose. Were those contracts awarded? Ms. Salazar. I believe we put a hold on it for a couple of weeks. I believe they were about to be let, or they may have been let already, but we basically gave out the order for the contracts to be let. Yes, there were two series of contracting awards that were taking place. The first one, the construction contracts, were let. Mr. Ose. OK. Now, obviously when we work on the runways and taxiways at Manta, you can't use the base while the construction is under way. If I recall correctly, Southern Command was in the process of arranging alternative--an alternative forward location to Manta while the construction was under way. Have those arrangements been completed? General Huber. Yes, sir, they have. You are exactly correct. As we looked at how long it would take basically to pour the concrete, we will use Aruba and Curacao as well as the international airfield in El Salvador, where we have aircraft operating out of right now, sir. Mr. Ose. Are we--let's see, July, August, September, are we on schedule with the improvements to the runways and taxi ways at Manta to be able to put AWACS into the region under the original schedule which called for by summer of 2001? General Huber. In my opinion, yes, sir, we are. Mr. Ose. Ms. Salazar, you were the one who brought this subject up back in June. Ms. Salazar. The way--I'm making calculus in my mind. As you know, we didn't get the supplemental until July 1st, so there was some stalling in the first. So we may be off by some weeks. Mr. Ose. So we are going to make it by the summer of 2001 on AWACS at Manta. Ms. Salazar. We hope so. Mr. Ose. I guess that's a commitment. Now, the next question I have is that we had a long discussion in that June hearing about P-3's versus AWACS. And I know I submitted some written questions for the record, Mr. Chairman, related to the efficacy of the P-3 versus the efficacy of the AWACS relative to their cost and their range and what have you. Ms. Salazar, if you can, is there a difference in the performance between a P-3 and an AWACS in this area? Ms. Salazar. Sir, I would defer to General Huber since this is an operational question. Mr. Ose. General, is there a difference in the performance of a P-3 versus an AWACS in this area? General Huber. Yes, sir, there is. Other than the obvious time on station and duration, the AWACS, which is our primary goal, as you know, to get that AWACS operating in Manta to give us particularly the range into the southern portion of Peru which we can get with the P-3's here. Mr. Ose. Is the--am I correct in recalling that--I'm trying to remember, it's like if you have one AWACS that it requires 2.4 P-3's to do the same job? General Huber. I'm not familiar with that comparison, sir. Mr. Ose. If a P-3 is not the equivalent of an AWACS on a one-to-one basis from an efficacy standpoint, is it half as effective? Is it three-quarters as effective? Do you have any feel for that? General Huber. No, sir, I don't. But I will get that answer from the Air Force component. They've got the experience. I'm just a simple infantry man. Mr. Ose. We all dump on, don't we. All right. I want to go back one more question, Ms. Salazar, on these forward operating bases. As it relates to Howard, if I recall correctly, your testimony for the last fiscal year out of which or in which Howard operated as forward operating location was that there was a--cost of the flights out of Howard was $75 million. The relative costs of operations out of, say, Manta or Aruba or Curacao or El Salvador, how does that compare to the $75 million? Ms. Salazar. Sir, I want to come back to you with the exact numbers. There have been some confusion because different numbers were given at different times. If you allow me, I'll come back with the exact number. Mr. Ose. I'm not sure I'm interested in doing that, Ms. Salazar, because I did submit these questions for the record back in June and I don't yet have answers. Ms. Salazar. I apologize, sir. Generally my staff and myself are--we try to get those questions to you as soon as possible. If you don't have them, I will make sure that you have them this week. Mr. Ose. Can you get a copy of this and take that to Ms. Salazar, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then bring me the original back. Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. And also if we could have a response for the record. We have it open for 2 weeks. We would appreciate you responding to the questions. If they weren't answered in June, they should certainly be answered after that hearing. Let me yield now to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have a few questions. Mr. Beers, is the United States assisting Colombia in identifying additional funding sources to support the plan? Mr. Beers. On a regular basis, sir. That is a constant topic of discussions. We have weekly or nearly weekly television conferences with them and that's one of the continuing every-time subjects that we talk about. Mr. Cummings. You said every time what? Mr. Beers. Every time we meet we talk about that subject and what each of us are doing together and separately in order to generate additional external funding. Mr. Cummings. OK. And what kind of progress are we making? Mr. Beers. Well, since the conference that was in July we have generated, I believe the numbers, an additional $200 million in pledges. We're looking toward another conference coming up in October or early November to try as a date specific to generate additional funds. President Pastrana is going on a European tour, I believe at the end of October, and we will be sending people in parallel to talk to the European donors as well. In addition to that, we have a longer term effort in association with the U.N. Drug Control Program. There will be a major donors conference meeting in December which I will attend. That will be another opportunity to talk to donors about generating additional funds. Mr. Cummings. According to the Los Angeles Times, I think they say a third of the drugs coming out of Colombia go to Europe. Is that accurate? Mr. Beers. Roughly, yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. And other than these discussions, I mean do we have ways of pressuring Europe to contribute more? Mr. Beers. Pressure, I wouldn't put it quite that way, sir, but we certainly make a strong effort at senior levels in the State Department to make that clear that this is a joint effort and that we are all subject to the problems that come out of Colombia. We provide them with information both open source and for those countries with which we exchange classified information we provide them with that same information or more information, I should say, on the classified basis. We have made attempts to talk to media in European media outlets in order to bring this effort to the publics within Europe in order to try to generate that same kind of support as has been done so effectively by many of you in this country in terms of drawing the American people's attention to the problem of drugs. Mr. Cummings. There have been reports that the guerrillas have said that anyone who accepts U.S. money will become a potential military target. Have you heard that? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. In light of this information what's the United States doing to protect our humanitarian workers and their Colombian counterparts? Mr. Beers. The Ambassador in Colombia is responsible for all of the protection of all of the official Americans in Colombia. And let me focus first on that, because that's not the only issue. With respect to that, she has regular meetings or her deputy chief of mission have regular meetings to talk about, one, the general threat to official Americans in Colombia and, two, any specific information about specific threats. As a result of that, there is a changing posture which can change within a few hours of receiving the information to say that an individual can go some place or cannot go some place, that individuals are in some place have to come back to a safer location in order to ensure their protection. In some cases that directly affects the ability for periods of time to deliver the programs that we've been talking about here, both on the humanitarian side and on the counternarcotics side. But we and she take very seriously the protection of official Americans. In addition to that, and through the same structure, she has the ability to reach out to nonofficial Americans in Colombia. There is a network in order to get information out to nonofficial Americans in Colombia to tell them about changes in the threat environment, to tell them where places are safe and where places are not safe. And then, third, we have the general notification process which says to the traveling American public what the dangers and risks are if you choose to travel to Colombia, for example, as a tourist. And Colombia is currently regarded as a place in which great caution should be exercised and most people should not consider going. Mr. Cummings. Just one last question, Brigadier General Huber, it's my understanding that in response to the increased U.S. presence in Colombia, drug traffickers and even the guerrillas have moved their operations to countries along the border. What is the U.S.'s response to the violence and the drug trafficking spreading in that region? General Huber. Sir, from U.S. Southern Command's perspective as I travel the region and talk to my military counterparts, they support the statement that you just made, that the police and the military of the neighboring countries have indeed repositioned and reinforced their borders in an attempt in coordination with the military of Colombia to contain the movement of the coca cultivation. As far as our response from my perspective, it is once again the training of those military units much like in our country, where the military provides support to the law enforcement agencies in the matters of communication, transportation, training, enhance those capabilities. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Pleased to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the panel, for your testimony. Could I just ask--and it may be something that I missed--but are we anticipating in the next go-around there will be a waiver or certification on the human rights issues? Mr. Beers. Sir, I'm not in a position to predict precisely what would happen, but if you ask me where we are today we would have to waive again. Mr. Tierney. We would have to waive again. We talked a little bit, Mr. Cummings asked about the progress of other participants in this plan. What about the status of money that Colombia was supposed to dedicate to this plan? According to the GAO report, they're a long way from identifying where they're going to get the $4 billion that they're putting up. What's our progress in helping them do this? Mr. Beers. Sir, it's 3 years worth of money. And like this country, they appropriate on an annual basis. So to say that they haven't put all the money forward is to say that their process hasn't engaged in the second and third year yet. Mr. Tierney. Do you feel they're fully committed at least to date? Mr. Beers. I feel that the President of Colombia and the Government of Colombia is fully committed to funding this. And we certainly will be in discussions with them about providing this. But is the funding identified? No, it's not. Mr. Tierney. With respect to the Colombian National Police assuming control over the aerial eradication operations, what's the status on that? In the report they're indicating that there was some distance to go on that, that the plan had not been finally adopted by the Colombians and that we were still looking at a situation where we didn't know exactly what direction we were heading in. Mr. Beers. There are two parts to that process, sir. With respect to the discussions with the Government of Colombia the last draft of the nationalization plan remains with the Colombian National Police. And we have not received back from them their comments or final position with respect to the draft which we printed them some time ago. Having said that, and in fairness to everybody concerned, we have not identified the money that would be necessary to support that process because what we are talking about is maintaining the current eradication effort, and on top of that, transitioning that eradication effort from on the coca side what is primarily an American contract-supported eradication effort to a fully Colombian eradication effort. They fly a number of the planes, but we plan most of the missions and we fly most of the eradication aircraft but not the support aircraft in those missions. With respect to the opium poppy effort, it is now entirely a Colombian National Police effort. What we need to do now is work both of those issues in order to both ensure that we don't lose the effort that we are currently undertaking and planning to expand and at the same time increase the Colombian content to that effort. That is our objective and that's the direction we're moving in. Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Have we done anything about our oversight down there? The reports here indicate that some of the helicopters might be used for purposes other than counternarcotics and some of the fuel, a substantial amount of the fuel provided for counternarcotics may have been misused. Are we tightening up on the oversight? Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. We have done two things with respect to the fuel. Let me comment on that first. We have set up--we asked for this IG investigation. And we welcome the indication that we needed to be doing a better job because that's--this is an important issue. What we have done first is try to make sure that we have an accurate and easily retrievable reporting system about each of the transactions. They were not done as they should have been done in the past. Part of that was the shortage of personnel, part of that was it simply wasn't attended to properly. Second, we are hiring additional oversight personnel to make sure that, once, the data is available, we can in fact go back and interrogate that information and then go back to make sure that the information as delivered is in fact information that is real. So we take that as a serious charge to be dealt with and we have efforts under way to do that. Mr. Tierney. I thank you. I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. Turner because I know we will be called for a vote pretty soon. I know he has some questions to ask, so I thank you. Mr. Mica. Mr. Turner, please proceed. Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, I actually have a series of questions that I would be happy just to submit to Secretary Beers for the record and ask that they be answered and placed in as part of the record. And in the event the questions are beyond the scope of the State Department's knowledge, perhaps also I would ask that General Huber join in answering these questions. But they all relate to the procurement item, and I will be happy to submit them to have them answered as part of the record. Mr. Mica. Without objection, we'll submit them and they will be part of the record. I ask the witnesses to respond. Did you have anything else Mr. Turner? Madam Ranking. Mr. Ose. Well, I commented with Mrs. Mink that this has been a very frustrating experience for me over the past year, three- quarters. And she as ranking member, we've got an extremely difficult situation at hand and we seem to be taking one step forward and two steps back. And I would please ask the witnesses if there are any changes in timetables, anything that you've testified before today that between now and the beginning of next year you keep the subcommittee posted. We want to know if there are any changes in delivery of this equipment, any further delays, anything we can assist with. Now the first money that was going down there, I think we called everyone in every 2 weeks the end of last year to try to make certain some of that moved forward. If we have to do that, we'll do that again. But we need to make certain that this is administered and accomplished in the way Congress intended and effectively. So we're counting on you and we ask you to respond to us. There being no further questions of this panel, I thank you and dismiss you at this time. Let me call our third and final panel which consists of one individual. That individual is Mr. Andrew Miller, who is acting advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean for Amnesty International. If we could have Mr. Miller come up. Mr. Miller, this is an investigation and oversight subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives. In that regard we do swear in our witnesses. If you have a lengthy statement, and I believe I've been provided with a rather lengthy statement and some background information upon request of the Chair and the committee, the entire statement and background will be made a part of the record. So if you would, I request in that regard, if you would please remain standing and let me swear you in. Raise your right hand. [Witness sworn.] Mr. Mica. The witness answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Mr. Miller, you're the only witness on this panel. Did you want this lengthy statement to be made part of the record? Mr. Miller. I would like for the lengthy statement to be made part of the record. Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered and you are recognized. We won't run the clock on you but if you could summarize and provide your testimony to the panel, I know they would be grateful. Thank you and please proceed. STATEMENT OF ANDREW MILLER, ACTING ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN FOR AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Mr. Miller. I would ask the chairman further that Human Rights Watch Amnesty International report that's attached to that to which I will be referring also. Mr. Mica. That was also part of my request. Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Chairman Mica, members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to be before you today. I am especially pleased to not be a member of the Clinton administration, a high ranking member of the administration who is supposed to be implementing Plan Colombia. I would just summarize my comments and I know your time is valuable and there are many things to do. I would like to address the human rights component of Plan Colombia, Amnesty International's concerns in Colombia. Primarily, when we think about the Plan Colombia we're concerned about what impact this is going to have on the human rights situation and in particular what message this sends to the Colombian military about their human rights performance. Going back many years, various international bodies, the United Nations and American Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, have been making detailed recommendations about what concrete steps need to be taken in order for human rights to be improved in Colombia. And unfortunately to date very few, if any, of those recommendations have been implemented by the Colombian state. And from the perspective of Amnesty International this highlights a lack of concrete political will to implement human rights in that country. Considering the U.S. military aid going to Colombia, we're concerned that aid itself might be involved in the commission of human rights violations or might be supporting military units who operate in the same area as the paramilitary units that work hand in hand. Amnesty International and many other organizations have extensively and overwhelmingly documented the links, the historic links and the current links between the Colombian military and paramilitary organizations. Along that line, we would like to mention considering the counternarcotics focus of the Plan Colombia that there are multiple groups within Colombia implicated in drug production, drug trafficking, etc., and as indicated in the GAO report, the paramilitaries are included in that group. So we're very concerned in addition to the human rights concerns that the plan itself focuses on one actor in a multiplicity of actors. And if indeed the objective is to eradicate drugs, etc., focusing on armed opposition groups solely and not on other actors that are seated with the state will not obtain that objective. Now this concern has been expressed by members of this committee for some time now. I believe the issue came about in committee, a subcommittee hearing in August of last year. Representative Mink submitted questions for the record. It again emerged in February of this year. And unfortunately, questions that have been put forth to the Clinton administration about the role of paramilitary groups and drug trafficking, drug production have not been answered to date. Now, one part of our testimony, and I believe you all have copies of a document which Amnesty International obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, which indicates that as far back as 1993 the Defense Intelligence Agency Counternarcotics Division knew that main paramilitary leaders were heavily implicated in the drug trade and that in fact the Colombian state enthusiasm about going against them would be lessened by the fact that these paramilitary groups had similar goals, similar counterinsurgency goals fighting the Colombian guerrillas. We believe that this document has got to be simply the tip of the iceberg in terms of information between the Defense Intelligence Agency, between the DEA, the CIA and other intelligence gathering organisms of the U.S. Government. This has got to be the tip of the iceberg in terms of information that is known about the role of paramilitary groups in drug trafficking and human rights violations. So we're somewhat concerned by the fact that the administration has not responded to those questions, and we would hope that this subcommittee would continue pushing forward demanding answers to those. In closing, I'll simply say that in terms of the certification process that was congressionally mandated Amnesty International participated in that. We put together a joint document that we're submitting for the record and we outlined concrete steps that should be taken immediately by the Colombian state that would have a positive impact toward protection of human rights in Colombia. In particular, those steps are investigating people for whom there are credible allegations both within the Colombian military, Colombian military groups, armed opposition groups, carrying out civilian investigations into those individuals, suspending them if they're military, not dismissing them, arresting them if they're paramilitary armed opposition, holding those trials in civilian courts and actually sending them to jail. One indicator of Colombian state political will to address human rights violations is whether or not there are high level Colombian military officials in jail, because we know that some of them are the intellectual authors of political violence in Colombia that goes back decades. They're well known paramilitary leaders who operate openly. They appear on television. It's known where they are. It's known where they live. The state doesn't go after them. So once we see these individuals, trials, credible trials against them, those individuals in jail, that will be an indication that Colombia indeed has the will. Until that time Amnesty will continue to be very concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia and in fact will continue to expose the military component of Plan Colombia. At this time I would happy to take questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5059.091 Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, some of your testimony and some of the material you've submitted deals with some past atrocities committed by the right wing paramilitary. Has there been any improvement that Amnesty International has seen since the advent of the Pastrana administration? I mean, admittedly in the previous administration it was a pretty horrible situation. And it didn't seem that there were any overt attempts to clean up human rights violations. Is there any glimmer of hope? Mr. Miller. Well, essentially what--unfortunately, the situation continues to deteriorate on all sides. I was surprised to hear Representative---- Mr. Mica. On all sides. Then the FARC and the ELN is also committing atrocities and human rights violations? Mr. Miller. Absolutely. You'll notice in the testimony that I refer to those and Amnesty International through the years has denounced those violations. I'd like to comment on the Pastrana administration. Essentially the tendency in Colombia has been that over time progressively the Colombian military itself seems to be getting out of the dirty war business. At the same time it's worth mentioning that there's a commensurate rise in violations carried out by paramilitary groups which often operate in heavily militarized zones. Amnesty International this year and in previous years has documented dozens and dozens of cases. The El Salado massacre is a high profiled case. It came out in the New York Times in July. There are numerous other massacres that have happened at the same time. In the packet that I have given there's a paper called Outsourcing Political Violence that lists a number of massacres in years past and in recent years carried out by paramilitary groups in the presence of military. Mr. Mica. So if you had a choice between giving assistance to the military or the National Police, I take it you would prefer the National Police? Mr. Miller. Well, it's worth mentioning that at the same time that there are the same kinds of allegations against the National Police, a direct commission of human rights violations. The National Police themselves are also implicated in the same way in the sense that they're not going after the paramilitaries. In many areas of Putumayo, in Caqueta, the National Police operate in areas where the paramilitaries also operate and they do not go after the paramilitaries either. Mr. Mica. Would your solution be to just withdraw all assistance? Mr. Miller. My solution would be to demand that concrete improvements be made. I mean the obstacle to these improvements is that the Colombian state actually has the desire to do them. And unfortunately, we're concerned that the assistance offers a green light that all the past administration and the Colombian militaries need to do is come up with a good public relations scheme and they're very good. The discourse is impeccable, but the concrete steps have not been taken, and we're concerned that they will not be taken as long as they continue to obtain their objectives. Mr. Mica. Let me just yield to Mr. Ose. Then I'll yield to the ranking member. Mr. Ose. Just for the record, back on June 23rd Chairman Gilman in his international report reported that the Colombia National Police had in fact gone into Catatumbo and basically attacked some of these right wing paramilitaries who were operating drug labs and illicit coca crops. I just want to get that on the record. I'll come back to it in my questioning. Thank you. Mr. Mica. Let me yield now to the gentlelady from Hawaii our ranking member, Mrs. Mink. Mrs. Mink. I appreciate, Mr. Miller, your attendance here this afternoon. I know you had very short notice in preparing your testimony. But I think the issues that you raise are very much in the minds of many of the Members who are concerned about the relevance of the Colombia drug production to the problems here in the United States. But we also have concerns about what the impacts will be to the people who live in Colombia and to what extent this huge infusion of military equipment, and so forth, will exacerbate their lives and make the human rights conditions much more difficult. When you say that the current administration has said all the right words and given all the right intentions with respect to really weighing in on this human rights question but that they have failed to perform, exactly what steps do you have in mind that the Pastrana administration must take in order to demonstrate to Amnesty International and others that they are prepared to do what is necessary to bring an end to this travesty of human rights that is occurring by both the military and the paramilitary groups? Mr. Miller. Well, as I mentioned, the international community has been making recommendations for years now but what the steps are in the joint document we outline exactly, using the congressional mandate. Mrs. Mink. Can you outline that for the record? Mr. Miller. Absolutely. Essentially to suspend military officers for whom there are credible allegations, which it's important to emphasize suspends as opposed to dismiss, because last year a number of high ranking military officers were dismissed but nothing is happening against them. They're operating freely and that's not a positive outcome. Mrs. Mink. What is the difference between a dismissal and a suspension? I noticed that in your testimony. Mr. Miller. The difference is dismissal simply means that they're let go, they're fired essentially but then they operate freely. A suspension means that they're held in administrative suspension, they're held by the military pending a trial. And it's important we mention that the trial be held in a civilian jurisdiction. The military justice system in Colombia essentially has proven itself as a mechanism to ensure impunity for members of the Colombian armed forces. So it's important that these people are suspended, they're held pending a legitimate trial, that the trial be carried forth, and that if indeed they are responsible for crimes under Colombian law, human rights crimes, that they be held accountable for this. Mrs. Mink. How many would you estimate are in this category of having been dismissed without having been brought to trial? Mr. Miller. Actually we name four or five of those in our report. We explicitly say that those people need to be brought to trial given the outstanding allegations against them. So I would say roughly four or five, four that I can think of off the top of my head, were suspended last year. There are a number of other generals who simply left over the years for whom there are very strong, credible allegations. Mrs. Mink. Anything else? Mr. Miller. I simply would mention that one important component is something that I mention in my testimony, is how U.S. aid is monitored and how the impacts of U.S. aid are monitored there. I think Congress can and must play a very important role in demanding that the administration report back explicitly about what the impacts have been in terms of human rights violations, in terms of any people who have been killed or any allegations against U.S.-supported units and including paramilitary activity in those same areas. Mrs. Mink. Earlier this afternoon Mr. Beers was asked a question with respect to the United States certifying that Colombia had met all the requirements with respect to receiving foreign assistance from the United States. And he testified that based upon the situation as it exists today that the United States could not certify and that there would have to be a waiver. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Miller. I absolutely agree with that statement. We of course prepare this document in the context of the first certification discussions. The new discussions will be happening later on this month and we will be reviewing this document. Of course the joint document is what we will take to the State Department and say to them what concrete improvement has been made on these cases. At the same time we will probably lump on the range of other cases that have happened in the meantime or happened in the past. There's no lack of cases of human rights violations in Colombia. Mrs. Mink. What are the specific grounds which allows the President to waive the requirement of Congress that human rights has to be certified before foreign aid can be given? Mr. Miller. As per the law they're on national security grounds. Mrs. Mink. What are the national security grounds that support a waiver in this instance? Mrs. Mink. I don't believe that they are specifically--I don't believe that the President has to specifically say and I don't believe in this recent--when he did waive, I don't think he offered specific reasons. I believe he simply said for national security reasons and went on to state that he believed that improvements were being made. Mrs. Mink. But my question to you is do you see any national security basis for a waiver? Mr. Miller. I believe that's the President's prerogative. But you know Amnesty International believes that it's very grave that these have simply been set aside by the President and we believe it sends a very negative message in terms of President Clinton's commitment to human rights. Mrs. Mink. Absent a finding of a national security basis, there would be no basis for a waiver, isn't that true? Mr. Miller. That is true. Mrs. Mink. Thank you. Mr. Mica. The gentleman from California, Mr. Ose. Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, when you talk about the Colombian National Police, are we engaged with the entire police force? I mean is the U.S. Government working with the entire Colombian National Police force? Mr. Miller. I don't know the answer to that question. Mr. Ose. The reason I bring it up is that I mean, I understand your concern that we all share about the atrocities, but I also know that in some instances elsewhere, at least historically, one group might be committing atrocities while another might not. Now are we working with the group, for instance, that is or isn't or do you know? Mr. Miller. I think that would be a good question for the State Department. I can't think of units of the National Police which are not allowed to receive aid under Leahy provisions. Mr. Ose. It's my understanding that our aid is going to the counternarcotics police force section only. Are there any allegations of atrocities against them? Mr. Miller. I cannot think of allegations of atrocities again the counternarcotics section of the National Police. But I don't believe that--I haven't seen allegations. Mr. Ose. So as far as this aid goes, we're doing a pretty good job in terms of protecting human rights as affected by our partners in this effort, I mean if I understand your response correctly. Mr. Miller. Yeah, my response is simply that I don't believe that there are specific units which under Leahy provisions are not allowed to receive that aid. So that would indicate that at least by State's judgment there weren't credible allegations against these counternarcotics units and I don't believe that Amnesty has specific information right now of credible allegations against those units either. Mr. Ose. You may have it about other sections of the Colombian National Police, but not about the people that we're working with. Mr. Miller. What comes to mind are police units in urban areas which are involved in social cleansing operations. That's what comes to mind. But that I believe would be different than the units to which you are referring. Mr. Ose. OK. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Did you have any additional questions? No additional questions. Well, Mr. Miller we want to thank you. We appreciate the work that Amnesty International does in acting as the conscience for the world in many difficult international situations and atrocities in human rights that you call such eloquent attention to. We look forward to working with you. We appreciate your coming before our subcommittee today. There being no further business before the subcommittee, I'll excuse you, Mr. Miller, and---- Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Mica. We are leaving the record open for a period of 2 weeks for additional comments. Appreciate participation of the Members today and our witnesses. This meeting of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] -