Press Conference with Senator Paul Coverdell and other members of Congress

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Porter Goss. I am the congressman from Southwest Florida.

I am very happy to welcome to the House Gallery this morning, for a purpose that the House shares strongly in, senators Coverdell and Grassley to talk about the Alianza Act. The purpose of course is to focus attention on a very serious deteriorating situation in Colombia, where our help is urgently needed, much sought and much deserved.

And with saying that, I am going to turn the podium over to Senator Coverdell and let him hold forth. And we may be joined by some of your other colleagues I am told.

We hope so.

Thank you, sir.

I'll be brief. But let me, as the beginning presenter, try to frame this situation. For some time now, it has been recognized by the international community, here in the United States, in Colombia and elsewhere, that the situation in Colombia is of crisis proportions, not only for Colombia, but for the Andean region and for democracy in general.

And there have been any number of us who have made sojourns to try to look at the situation firsthand. I have been among those. The administration has dispatched General McCaffrey, our drug czar; Ambassador Pickering, among the most accomplished of our senior Foreign Service Officers, to look at the situation firsthand. And to the person, they have confirmed that this is a circumstance that requires United States' attention.

Subsequent to that, two things happened. One, the Congress-myself and others; Senator Grassley, Senator DeWine, Congressman Goss and others on this side-have drafted the Alianza, which is a three- year program of assistance to Colombia and the Andean region, about $1.6 billion over a three-year period.

Comes the problem.

The administration requested of Colombia, President Pastrana and his administration, that they put forward a plan-you know, a coordinated effort, a focused effort, about what to do here. They have. They brought the plan forward. And as I've said, the Congress has responded. There's one missing player here; it's the administration and the secretary of State.

Now this is unacceptable. The administration is going to have to get its act together, and quickly, to respond to the Colombia plan, which was offered by President Pastrana, and to the congressional plan.

There's great discussion in this city that there are many similarities between the congressional view and the administration's view, but the tardiness is a problem. You know, you don't want to-if the barn is burning down, it's not something you gather off at Foggy Bottom and sort of muddle over for a month or so.

Now I'm hopeful that when we return in January, that what the president and the secretary of state have put in motion-they will understand they must now bring closure to this. They must come forward in January, and they must be forthright and candid, and join hands with the Congress and with the plan that's been offered by Colombia, and move this. Elseway (sic) -- anything short of that makes the problem more difficult. They'd have been better off not to dispatch their emissaries. They did. They had a specific plan of action they called for. It's been responded to by Colombia. It's been responded to by the Congress, and they're the missing player right now. And we cannot dally any longer. It is time for them to come together and present to the Congress their response to the Alianza Act.

In a nutshell, that's what we're all about right here in the closing hours of this session of the 106th Congress. This actually should have been done this October. It's cost us four months. In crises like that, that's too long. But that's where we are. And hopefully, the letter from-and I have a letter here from the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the president dated November 19th, basically saying exactly what I've said here. But to read his last paragraph: "The Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate as a whole stand ready to cooperate with you to deal with this growing Colombia crisis. Without leadership from the executive branch, however, the threat will grow, as will the dire consequences for the American people." Wish I had said it that succinctly.

Now I'll turn it back to you, Porter. Oh, Chuck? Okay, very good. The chairman of our drug conference.

First of all, let me apologize because when I'm done giving my statement, I'm going to leave. And if you want to ask me questions, you can call my office, but I won't be able to stay.

Secondly, I associate myself with the remarks by Senator Coverdell, both of his description and our understanding of the situation within Colombia, as well as the inadequacy and the problems we have here within our own government in not adequately responding. Now, I know that the administration as well as Congress is deeply concerned about the situation in Colombia, and this has been a growing concern over the past several years. And that concern has been reflected in the increased amount of assistance that the United States has provided.

As we have in the past, I believe the United States must and will continue to support and provide assistance that is needed by the government of Colombia. Just like everyone else here, I have seen the news articles quoting administration officials, calling for $500 million to $1 billion of additional aid to Colombia. This assistance is necessary, and so correctly stated, to support the current U.S. commitments to Colombia as well as the request for assistance that the government of Colombia has put together in the plan for Colombia.

Both Congress and the administration recognize this need, and both have taken some action, albeit inadequate, to meet the needs.

Now, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement within the State Department last year had appropriated $261 million. Of this, $30 million was specifically allocated to assist the ongoing counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. This year their funding was increased to $285 million, so I feel that this should very easily cover an additional $10 million, making a total of $40 million for Colombia, which the president requested.

Today Colombia is the third-largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States for fiscal year '99, Congress, between the regular appropriations process, which allocated $30 million for Colombia, and a supplemental which provided an additional $173 million for Colombia through the Narcotics and Law Enforcement Agency. Now, in addition to this funding, the president requested an additional $58 million in emergency drawdown assistance for Colombia under emergency authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Now, I applaud the president for recognizing this emergency situation, but I think we have to stop to think what is the authority of the president, and is he responding adequately to this, because I want to remind everybody that he has the ability, and he has the ability every fiscal year to provide up to $100 million in emergency drawdown assistance.

So I am concerned that the administration has not acted more promptly in providing additional assistance. As Senator Coverdell has already noted, Congress is prepared to act on this as a priority right now, but not right now is possible because of inactivity. We are prepared to respond. What we need is the administration to get its act together and to get this comprehensive package put together as quickly as possible. So I'm fully supportive of everything that Senator Coverdell has said, and we'll work together, hopefully, to make it happen, but we can't make it happen by ourselves.

Thanks, Chuck.

You bet. Thank you.

(Off-mike cross talk.)

I want to thank these gentlemen very much for their leadership of this. And we have others here who we hope may be able to get here, as we know it's an unusual schedule today.

But Senator Coverdell has not only provided leadership in this area; he's been a big leader in the Senate side, as we all know, on the drug kingpin legislation, which the House has now passed and hopefully awaits passage in the conference report, I hope.

Knock on wood!

Yeah. Well, I hope we don't have knock on any wood. Maybe if we could just get some votes, it would work.

And we want to give that tool because we think that's a tool our people need. But this is about helping out the Andean nations, and we are making progress in a couple of areas.

I stand here very much comfortable with the knowledge that the speaker of the House is extremely concerned about this and has given a lot of attention and priority to dealing with this. I have recently sat in the speaker's office with the president of Colombia, the ambassador, the head of the police effort there, General Serrano, and General Tapias (sp), of the military effort. And we have talked a lot about how we make this happen. And we've now pretty much done our part, and it is up to the administration.

I'm a public servant, politician, person that runs for public office. And those of us in that field are always asked questions at some point in an election process: "Have you ever been addicted to a product that might come from the Andean nations?" And I'm going to make an admission I've never made before. In my case, the answer is yes. The product is coffee. It's an excellent product. And I know there are a lot of us out there --(laughter) -- who enjoy Colombian coffee, and we'd like to see-

(laughter) -- my staff just collapsed on the floor back there. (Laughter.) We like to see people enjoy good Colombian coffee.

And if you get addicted to that, I am sure there are ways to deal with it that are worthy to speak about.

But we're talking about something far more sinister, and the numbers on what's going on in both heroin and cocaine are extremely alarming. And I'm not just saying that; it's true.

We have a new way of measuring data. I'm chair of the Intelligence Committee in the House, as most of you know, and we have made a special effort to re-analyze product and how it's coming out and what strength it has, what the price is, and all of the other dimensions and parameters of this. We have underestimated the potency of the coca leaf because we are not-we've always assumed a certain alcohol-like content level, and it finds out we are using a low level, when in fact we should be using the higher number.

In addition to that, in the processing, besides the content of the leaf, we have found that the processing efficiencies are much greater than we thought previously, in Colombia. So when you-instead of blurring your eyes over with lots of numbers, let me just tell you, in the past few years, the metric tonnage coming from Colombia, in cocaine, has more than doubled, and we are in the 400 to 500 metric-ton range per year right now. That's literally tons of cocaine.

The second thing you need to know is we are also talking about heroin. Heroin now coming from Colombia, something like 6 metric tons a year-if that's the right number-it's certainly a huge number, and it's one we think is accurate-it accounts for about 50 percent of all heroin usage in the United States. Sorry to report, heroin is becoming fashionable again because the ways to use heroin are less messy than formerly, and consequently some folks have figured that out. Heroin is very deadly because it provides a very heavy punch. The purity has gone up, and the price has gone down.

All of the trend lines, all of the patterns, all the motivators are going the wrong way on this. And so we might say, "Gee, we can wait a few more months to get the administration's attention here, because we know they'll come aboard eventually because eventually there will be an opportunity to stand up and say something good has happened, as long as we keep working at this." We want to make darn sure that those months don't go by because every day we have more victims.

This is not a victimless situation; there are victims. And the victims are the youngsters of America, by and large, and other Americans and other citizens in other countries. Some willfully take drugs-some do-but there are an awful lot of innocent victims, and they are the young people.

We are talking pretty much the supply side here. We are in no way ignoring the treatment side, the demand side. We are simply saying it takes effort on all fronts to score on this, to reduce the number of victims, particularly the innocent victims.

So that's why the Alianza Act is particularly timely and important. And if we do nothing else today, I hope we reassure our friends in Colombia that we are with them. And I hope we get the attention of the White House.

When the president gets back to the United States, we hope we can get him to focus a little bit on this hemisphere now and the problems that we're having in our own hemisphere, which have a day-to-day effect on the quality of life of a great many Americans. It's something we can do something about.

I thank you for being here. We'll take questions.

No, I thought it would be-the first should be an emergency. No, I come here with pretty comfortable -- I don't feel disingenuous at all.

Well, we have pushed for it. The problem is, if you will remember the history of it, that there was adamant standing, both by the speaker of the House and members of the Senate, that before any action was taken place, the administration had to state its case. Now, I can't ask you questions, but the point is, and you well know, the administration has not; it's been an absolutely vacant tube. And so I think that had the administration stepped forward any time following the dispatch-I need to show a copy of the letters to the administration, not only by the chairman of the committee but by members of Congress, saying "Come forward." We really can't move without them making their case. It's been made pretty clear by Speaker Hastert that he's not inclined to move without the administration making a statement.

Yeah, you may want to comment on that.

I tell you, I think you're going to have a pretty hard case making this a congressional laxity. You can try it, but I don't think you're going to make it, because the point is you sent the general down there, he came back and said something needed to be done, you sent Ambassador Pickering down there and came back. You haven't heard a pipe out of the secretary of State, period.

Now, we've drawn a bill. We've said what we think we should do. We called on the first year being part of emergency expenditures. We've had zip from this administration. And they were down there in the summer.

So the point is, you're not going to be able to make a case that this is congressional inattention. I mean, there's been attention throughout the Congress, in the Senate and the House.

Well, I guess it's YOUR turn to see if YOU feel disingenuous. (Laughter.)

No, I'm feeling frustrated, not disingenuous. This is a real problem. And your question is a fair question, have we done everything we can do in Congress to bring the attention and the resources to bear on this in a timely way. And from my perspective, I'm very comfortable in saying yes to that. I don't know how I could do it any differently. My problem is that we are legislators, not executors. The executors are in the executive branch. We are waiting for the executive branch to do things. It turns out that the soldiers in the executive branch, the people who make things happen, are ready to do things too. The problem is at the top. And we need to get the attention. I bet if you asked Barry McCaffrey if he was satisfied with the situation, he would probably say no. I'll let you (deal with ?) that. (Laughs.)

I think he'd say no. I would like to see a bigger presence. I think when President Bush was down there, we set a very strong expectation that we were with them. I think we've gone through a lot in Colombia. A lot of things have happened within the country itself, in the evolution of the society of that country. We know now that it is more difficult to deal with the war on drugs because of the circumstances in the country. We don't wish to intrude on the sovereign rights or activities of the country; on the other hand, we wish to be a good neighbor and friend and help.

We said we are going to do that. We now have a president who has believed us. President Pastrana is down there. He is somewhat out waiting, having promised his people this aid was coming. This is not news. The president of the United States, as you know, spoke on the telephone with him, according to press reports, not long ago, so one would expect to hear from the president up here that we are going to take certain steps to specifically deal with his plan.

I have not heard those steps from the White House. I hoping this will assist us-get to that point.

Yes, ma'am?

May I answer that?

Oh, please do, Senator.

This is-and I can make a copy available-this is to the president, and it's dated August 3rd. And it's signed by Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Lott. "We are deeply concerned by the rapidly deteriorating political, economic, security situation in Colombia"-I'm not going to read it all. "We would like to hear from you and your senior advisers now on immediate steps that can be taken to regain a secure and stable environment in Colombia and in the outlying areas that they suggest, which I think all of us would concur." The point is, these are unanswered.

Nothing else really to say.

Yes, ma'am?

The other nations.

Yeah. One of the trend lines I didn't speak to is that things are getting better in the other Andean nations, some things that are happening there that are working, and it isn't just the proportion, therefore, of the problem that's causing a problem in Colombia; it's the actual tonnage coming out of Colombia. So two places are going right. One place is going wrong. That's the place we'd need to focus our help and attention, and that's Colombia.

First, the number is-your numbers some-it's 1.6 billion over three years.

The figures that would be for the Andean region would not quite be half. The majority would be Colombian-oriented. And I think I want to say 200 (million), 300 million maybe would be the Andean component. I may be high on that.

The plan, which I think caused us to be somewhat optimistic, was not drawn up in a cloakroom on the congressional side. The plan, the Alianza Act, has had the input of a lot of components of the administration. And all the agencies theoretically involved have had an opportunity to have input.

In the hearing that occurred on the Senate side, Porter, both sides-there is a bipartisan nature about it. The distribution of the resources is generally complemented because it's balanced between military assets, social assets and humanitarian requirements, recognition of the broad spectrum of issues that need attention.

So it's not something that should be cold to anybody in the administration, which is a bit of the puzzle that we have here. It's something for which in your state, in ours, there has been much speculation that it's symbiotic, that much of what's in the Alianza Act would represent much of the discussions that General McCaffrey's had or that Ambassador Pickering-and the general nature of the plan that came from Colombia itself.

So we are standing on a beachhead that looks, from every angle except this tardiness, that it's something that we ought to be able to put together reasonably quickly, if we can get the other component to come to the table.

I would think so.

Yes, I do.

I think there's a recognition in the Congress that it's a broad spectrum of circumstances that needs attention; it's just not military. And I think that there will be, as already expressed in the construction of the act, I think in the Congress an acceptance of, you know, as I said, the broad spectrum.

Porter, you might want to comment on that.

I will say this. It's very important to understand that Colombia is fighting two wars simultaneously here. They've got a guerrilla war or discord of some time-I don't know how you want to characterize it, and then we have the war on drugs, and they're doing two things at the same time.

Now, there are some success stories. And we have found that the way you win the war on drugs-dealing in Peru and Bolivia and others cases-is you try a variety of things; some I would call carrots, some I would call stick. Among the carrots you're saying are crop rotation substitutes, different markets, develop into different types, roads, so forth. Yeah, you can characterize that any way you want. But that's-if we get people to stop growing the coca and grow something else, coffee, perhaps, we're doing something useful.

So there is an aspect to the program that this isn't just soldiers. That was the word I used. I meant all of the soldiers; I meant the people-using the generic word "soldiers", not in the military sense, but the people, the foot people who are out there doing the hard work.

Now, one of the other things we all know is that in some of the areas in the south part of Colombia, security is a bit of a problem. And we also know that there has been a tendency to grow the coca, moving it from the lowland variety in Guaviare to Caqueta and to Putumayo, to the higher altitudes, where we're getting a more potent yield, a higher alkaloid content. So things like that are happening. But our analysis is a little bit standoff because it's sort of hard to be there on the ground these days doing that.

There are a lot of different sticks we can use, and one I alluded to earlier-the kingpin-is vitally important-the kingpin legislation-because I honestly believe we've made huge inroads into the Cali cartel and I think we have the opportunity to do that elsewhere. We just simply have to get this legislation passed. And I have no reason to believe it won't. It was strongly supported in the House.

Yes?

I have not been briefed by the administration. I have been briefed by my staff. I don't know where, exactly, they got their figures, but I presume from the executive branch agencies. I know that the pilot program that we have in doing the analysis here -- (to staff) -- which I can talk about, Operation Breakthrough? -- okay-basically is coming back with revised estimates and saying that the trend lines are going up. It's going the wrong way.

Now, that might be a call to the-for more AWACS, more Coast Guard interception. It might be a call for more border guards. It might be a call for more customs inspectors. Actually, it's a call for all of it because we'd like to reduce it and we'd like to stop the flow, and then we'd like to deal with the treatment end. So the answer to your question is, one of the reasons we're here today, when we could be doing other things in other places or focused on other subjects, is that this is serious and this is negatively affecting the United State of America and the lives of its citizens. That's the top priority. It's called national security. And this is a top priority.

We're going to have to break off here in a minute.

There's one really very positive element to this struggle that ought to be noted. I don't hear it talked about very much. And that is that this insurgency movement, unlike many of the others that we've dealt with over the last 25 years, does not have a large indigenous following. It is basically fueled by nefarious money, narcotic-this thing is narcotic fueled. The data I've seen, 3 percent of the population support. This is a very positive thing for Colombia that essentially the population, which has been steeped in democratic principles for many, many, many years, do not want those to be lost. And this is an opportunity both for Colombia, their neighbors and for the international community, of which the United States is one. This is something for which we should take heart. It also should be something that causes us, as I said in the beginning, to be motivated to move as quickly as possible.

Do you want to take one more question? Yes, ma'am?

Now I'm not familiar with that.

Yeah, that's what we're talking about. That act, if-I'm not sure how you refer to it. We call it the kingpin-the drug kingpin act.

Oh, oh. The status? It's passed the House. It is in the intelligence (authorization ?) conference report that's before the Senate in all the swirling of our trying to conclude activities on the Senate side. People who predict what legislatures are going to do are the kinds that represent themselves in court. But I'm very optimistic that it will pass-

Well, it would be within the next hours, because it would either be-sometime between now and tomorrow noon it will have either passed or not. And I'm very optimistic that it will pass.

I've got two hands up. Let me take them. We're going to be very brief, though.

Yes, ma'am?

I don't think it's a political game. I don't-in fact, I-Porter, you can-I think it's the tardiness. There's something that-other agendas and other things, other interests, some we can talk about, some you can't talk about. But the point is that it's been-it did not receive, in my judgment, in the administration the priority that was required. I'm pretty optimistic that it will in January.

Now you want to comment?

I will add to that I am more than optimistic about it. We are very definitely monitoring this very closely. The only reason I think that the speaker is not here today is that he had another engagement. This was originally set up for yesterday, and he had another engagement. I think he'd be here.

I can tell you that the speaker called me, within the past couple of days, specifically to talk about this problem and how we can get more action in Colombia and more of this plan going than we have been able to, so far.

We have all kinds of contingency ways to deal with this. This is at the top of my list. I said this was a top priority; I meant, "This is a top priority." I hope that the president of the United States will treat it as a top priority. It deserves it.

I would certainly support a supplemental with the Senate.

(Inaudible) -- the same thing-

Yes?

Let respond to you that-

after we finish this press conference.

I certainly will.

Okay. Thank you everybody. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Paul, very much.