Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Gerrity and Cindy Conolly of my staff be allowed floor privileges for the duration of H.R. 3061.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider during this Congress. The horrific loss of life and destruction that occurred on September 11, the crime against humanity, changed us as a country. The Uniting and Strengthening America Act is an opportunity to help ensure that such terrorist attacks do not occur again. We need to improve all aspects of our domestic security, including by enhancing our intelligence capacities so that we can identify possible future attacks in their planning stages and prevent them from happening. We must be vigilant and willing to invest the resources and time required to gather the information that we need to protect ourselves and our way of life. I appreciate the enormous amount of time and energy that my colleagues in both Chambers have put into this legislation. They have done their best to balance the risk of further terrorist attacks with possible risks to civil liberties. This comprehensive bill includes measures to enhance surveillance; improve the working relationship among Federal, State, and local agencies; strengthen border control; permit the detention of certain suspects who may be the subject of investigative efforts; help crime victims; respond to bioterrorism; and crack down on money laundering. I am especially supportive of two new important provisions added in conference that will enhance domestic preparedness against future attacks, at the local level: the First Responders Assistance Act, and the Grant Program for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support. These provisions authorize grants to State and local authorities to respond and prevent acts of terrorism, particularly for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction and biological, nuclear, and chemical devices; and revises an existing grant program to provide 1, additional flexibility to purchase needed equipment; 2, training and technical assistance to State and local first responders; and 3, a more equitable allocation of funds to all States. Last week I traveled to Moorhead, Mankato and Rochester, MN and talked with firefighters and first-responders about this very issue. They told me they desperately need training and equipment to address our new terrorism risks. These local grants are extremely important to address the needs our most important asset in the fight against terrorism: those law enforcement and emergency personnel on the front lines. Although I still have some reservations about certain provisions of the bill as they might affect civil liberties, and wish that it were more tightly targeted to address only actions directly related to terrorism or suspected terrorism, I am pleased with the inclusion of several key civil liberty safeguards. The bill requires certain electronic reports to go to a judge when pen registers are used on the internet; includes provisions requiring notification to a court when grand jury information is disclosed; and contains a 4-year sunset with limited grandfathering for several of the electronic surveillance provisions. The bill expands the Regional Information Sharing Systems Program to promote information sharing among Federal, State, and local law enforcement have a critical role to play in preventing and investigating terrorism, and this bill provides them benefits appropriate to such duty. The bill streamlines and expedites the Public Safety Officers' Benefits application process for family members of fire fighters, police officers and other emergency personnel who are killed or suffer a disabling injury in connection with a future terrorist attack. And it raises the total amount of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program payments from approximately $150,000 to $250,000. This bill will also make an immediate difference in the lives of victims of terrorism and their families. It refines the Victims of Crime Act and by doing so improves the way in which its crime fund is managed and preserved. It replenishes the emergency reserve of the Crime Victims Fund with up to $50 million and improves the mechanism to replenish the fund in future years. The USA Act also increases security on our northern border, including the border between Canada and my State of Minnesota. It triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service, and INS inspectors at the northern border and authorizes $100 million to improve old equipment and provide new technology to INS and the Customs Service at that Border. On the criminal justice side, the bill clarifies existing ``cybercrime'' law to cover computers outside the United States that affect communications in this country and changes sentencing guidelines in some of these cases. It provides prosecutor better tools to go after those involved in money laundering schemes that are linked to terrorism, and it adds certain terrorism-related crime as predicates for RICO and money-laundering. At the same time, the bill establishes procedures to protect the rights of persons whose property may be subject to confiscation in the exercise of the government's antiterrorism authority. It strengths our Federal laws relating to the threat of biological weapons and enhances the Government's ability to prosecute suspected terrorists in possession of biological agents. It will prohibit certain persons, particularly those from countries that support terrorism, from possessing biological agents. And it will prohibit any person from possessing a biological agent of a type of quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose. I support these much-needed measures. And I especially support the four-year sunset provision for several of the electronic surveillance provisions. I do wish, however, that some provisions were might tightly targeted to address only actions directly related to terrorism or suspected terrorism. It is for this reason, I believe we will need to monitor the use of new authorities provided to law enforcement agents to conduct surveillance. The bill broadens the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by extending FISA surveillance authority to criminal investigations, even when the primary purpose is not intelligence gathering. The bill limits this ability by authorizing surveillance only if a significant purpose of it is to gather intelligence information. I hope this new FISA authority will be used for the purpose of investigating and preventing terrorism or suspected terrorism, and not for other domestic purposes. The bill also allow surveillance to follow a person who uses multiple communications devices or locations, the so-called ``roving-wiretap.'' Again, I am hopeful this new authority will not be abused. We have done our best in this bill to maximize our security while minimizing the impact some of these changes may have on our civil liberties. Nearly all of us have probably said since September 11 that if that day's terror is allowed to undermine our democratic principles and practices, then the terrorists will have won a victory. We should pass this bill today. And we should also commit ourselves to monitoring its impact of civil liberties in the coming months and years. Our challenge is to balance our security with our liberties. While it is not perfect, I believe we are doing that in this bill. Madam President, it is a jarring analogy, but I use it to explain how I arrived at my decision on this legislation. In 1940 and 1941, the Germans engaged in an unprecedented attack on the civilian population of Great Britain. The goal was to weaken citizens in their fight against Nazism. At the end of that attack, 20,000 people were killed. On September 11 in our country, close to 6,000 innocent people were massacred. It is absolutely the right thing to take the necessary steps to try to prevent this from happening and to provide protection to people in our country. There are many provisions in this legislation with which I agree. They are important to people in Minnesota, Michigan, and around the country, by way of what we need to do to protect our citizens. When it comes to electronic surveillance, as Senator Feingold has stated with considerable eloquence, the legislation goes too far and goes beyond world terrorists, who I think are a real threat to people in our country and other nations as well. How do I balance it out? My view is that I support this legislation because all of the positive issues, which I will go into in a moment, that are so important to the people I represent have to do with protecting the lives of people. If we do not take this action and we are not able to protect people, then more people can die, more people will be murdered. That is irreversible. We cannot bring those lives back. This legislation has a 4-year sunset. I said when the Senate passed the bill that I would reserve final judgment as to whether I vote for the final product based on whether there will be a 4-year sunset when it comes to electronic surveillance. We can monitor--there will be some abuses, I think--we can monitor that, and if there are abuses, it is reversible; we can change it. That is why I err on the side of protecting people, and it is why I support this legislation. The bill includes measures to enhance surveillance, to improve the working relationships of Federal, State, and local agencies--that has to happen--to strengthen control of the Canadian border. For our States up North, that is very important. When it comes to the detention of certain suspects who may be the subject of investigative efforts, there are safeguards against unlimited detention. I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch and others for pulling back from some of the original proposals which made this a much better piece of legislation. There is a crackdown on money laundering. I thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Kerry and others for their fine work. There is another provision that is very important. The First Responders Assistance Act and grant program all go together. When I traveled to greater Minnesota last week, when I went to Moorhead, Mankato, Rochester, and Duluth, I spoke with fire chiefs and all said: We are the first responders. We know that from New York. Please get some resources back to the local level. It is a local public safety model where if you give us the resources, let us assess our needs--we have the training; we may need additional equipment--if you are going to talk about the ways we can best protect people, we are going to protect people where they live, where they work, or where their children go to school. Getting the resources to the local community, the fire chiefs, and police chiefs is critically important. As I said, there are some key civil liberty safeguards. The bill requires certain electronic reports to go to a judge when pen registers are used on the Internet. It includes provisions requiring notification to a court when grand jury information is disclosed, and it contains the 4-year sunset when it comes to the electronics surveillance provisions. That is critically important. The bill streamlines and expedites the public safety officers benefits application for the firefighters and the police officers and others who were killed and suffered disabling injuries. It raises the total amount of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. The Victims Crime Act is in this bill. It improves the way the crime fund is managed. It replenishes the emergency fund for crime victims up to $50 million. This is really important. These are the important provisions. On the other hand, I do wish some of the provisions were more tightly targeted to address only actions directly related to terrorism or suspected terrorism. It is for this reason that I think it is critically important each and every Senator and Representative monitor the use of new authorities provided to the law enforcement agency to conduct surveillance. We are going to have to monitor this aspect very closely. It has been said, and it should be said, we do not want to pass legislation that undermines our democratic principles or practices. If we do that, the terrorists have won a victory. If I thought this was such legislation, I would not support it. I will say this one more time: From my point of view, this legislation is better than it was when it passed the Senate. The sunset provision is critically important. Ultimately, where I come down is if we do not take some of these steps with some of the provisions I have outlined, which are very important, very positive in protecting people, and more people are killed and there is more loss of life of innocent people, you cannot bring those lives back. I am not a lawyer, and this is my layperson way of analyzing this. If there are some abuses with the surveillance, we monitor it, we can pass new legislation, and we can change it. It sunsets in 4 years. That is reversible. I err on the side of protection for people. I wish we did not even have to consider this legislation. I wish we were not even living in these times. I believe terrorism is going to be a part of our lives. I think it is going to be a part of our children's lives. I think it is going to be a part of our grandchildren's lives. I think this is going to be the struggle for several generations to come. No one action and no one step is going to end it. I think that is now the world, unfortunately, in which we live. That is now the world in which all of God's children live. There are some things we are going to have to do differently and, as I said, we must be vigilant. Where there are excesses, we need to change that. I do believe this legislation is an important step in the direction of trying to prevent this and providing protection to our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I may follow the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I agree with the statement of my colleague from Minnesota and would like to join him in underscoring the urgency of this funding for the sugar beet growers in Minnesota. As my colleague has recognized the five hundred fifty producer members of the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative in Renville, Minnesota experienced a freeze of sugar beets while still in the ground during the early stage of their annual harvest. The cooperative continued with their harvest, with the goal of extracting as much of the crop's value from the market, while knowing that federally subsidized crop insurance would likely cover losses that which were not harvested. Unfortunately these growers are now having difficulty claiming due compensation under the Quality Loss Program authorized in last year's Agriculture Appropriations bill. While USDA has offered to settle disaster assistance claims, their offer falls dangerously short, jeopardizing hundreds of family farmers and the local economy. The growers have presented USDA with information to justify a disaster payment of $31 million, but USDA has rejected this argument. It is now clear that additional assistance from Congress is needed to secure the continued operation of hundreds of family farms in and around Renville, Minnesota. I ask the Chairman, Senator Kohl, if he agrees that additional assistance is necessary, in this Agriculture Appropriations Bill, to ensure the continued viability of the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and its five hundred fifty member growers?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Feingold, with this amendment. Mr. President, I rise today to address disturbing developments in our antinarcotics efforts in Colombia, and to join Senator Feingold in calling for a shift in our fumigation policy. The motivations behind the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and last year's Plan Colombia are important--stop the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. I, like every other member of this body, am extremely concerned about the effects of drug use on our citizens, particularly our children. That said, I am becoming more and more convinced that the plan advanced for combating this problem targets the wrong source. What's more, I think that the methodology used is neither fair nor effective. I am talking about aerial coca eradication, which has been the focus of our efforts in Colombia. Last December, the Colombian military began a massive fumigation campaign in southern Colombia, with U.S. support. Under the current plan, pilots working for DynCorp, a major U.S. government military contractor, spray herbicide on hundreds of thousands of acres of Colombian farmland. To date, the provinces of Putumayo, Cauca, and Narino have been most affected, but expansion of the program is imminent. I have a number of concerns about this approach. First, I have become increasingly convinced that fumigation is an extreme, unsustainable policy causing considerable damage. Since the fumigation campaign started last December, rivers, homes, farms, and rainforests have been fumigated with the herbicide Round-Up. Because Round-Up is a ``non-selective'' herbicide, it kills legal food crops and the surrounding forest, in addition to coca plants. Furthermore, farmers and their supporters contend that glyphosate is hazardous. I'm beginning to believe they're right. Round-Up is classified by its manufacturer, Monsanto, as ``relatively safe.'' However, the EPA classifies Round-Up as ``most poisonous,'' while the World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely poisonous.'' Directions on glyphosate products, like Round-Up, warn users not to apply the product in a way that will cause contact with people ``either directly or through drift.'' These instructions and warnings are not being taken into consideration. What's more, according to the Round-Up website, the herbicide is not recommended for aerial application and is not supposed to be applied near or in bodies of water. However, in Colombia, much of the coca cultivation takes place alongside rivers and ponds, and these bodies of water are routinely fumigated. A November 2000 report by the American Bird Conservancy notes that Round-Up is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Putumayo, where the spraying has been principally concentrated, reports over 4,000 people with skin or gastric disorders, above and beyond normal averages. In January and February alone, over 175,000 animals were killed in that region. All had been sprayed with Round-Up and Cosmo Flux, a Colombian-made mix. Mr. President, in light of this mounting evience, I don't believe that we can sit idly by as U.S. taxpayer dollars go toward such a policy. The environmental consequences are serious. The health effects are concerning at best, deadly at worst. This is an especially personal issue for me. As the only United States Senator to withstand aerial fumigation, I feel I have a unique obligation to address this matter forcefully. When I visited Colombia last year, I was sprayed with glyphosate. At the time, I had little idea of the threats that such activity entailed. Families continue to suffer hunger as legal food crops have been destroyed and livestock have been harmed. No emergency aid has been provided, and economic development efforts have yet to be realized. In fact, according to a report by Colombian Human Rights Ombudsman Eduardo Cifuentes, eleven different alternative development projects were fumigated during the campaigns. We are undermining our own programs. This brings me to my second point; alternative development aid has not been delivered, even though fumigation has been in place since December. While fumigation began soon after the passage of Plan Colombia, alternative development programs have yet to get off the ground. Last July, the Center for International Policy held a meeting with experts from southern Colombia. At that meeting, they reported that those communities who have signed pacts agreeing to eradicate coca in December and January have not yet received aid. These communities--like Puerto Asis and Santa Ana, both in Putumayo--have expressed their willingness to work on the problem. What have they gotten instead? They have gotten babies with rashes, dead animals, ruined food crops, and tainted water. In addition, the slowness in aid delivery makes farmers lose further trust in the Colombian government and in eradication. As we all know, alternative development takes time to plan and implement. We can expect that USAID will be moving ahead in the future. But it is clear from events in southern Colombia that there was no coordination between fumigation efforts and alternative development. A massive fumigation campaign went ahead when development programs were still in the planning stage. This is the height of irresponsibility. How are we going to get Colombian peasants to change their practices without viable alternatives? Under the current plan, the government of Colombia will give each family up to $2,000 in subsidies and technical assistance to grow substitute crops like rice, corn and fruit. We are providing $16 million specifically for these purposes--a mere 1 percent of the total Colombian aid package. Many believe this is not enough, with the average coca farmer making about $1,000 a month. Regardless, these subsidies have yet to take effect. We haven't even tried. In the USAID ``Report on Progress Toward Implementing Plan Colombia-- Supported Activities'' released at the end of last month, these facts become apparent. Of the more than $40 million obligated under Plan Colombia for promoting economic and social alternatives to illicit crop production, a mere $6 million has been spent. Of the 37,000 families who signed ``social pacts'' agreeing to eliminate coca in exchange for alternative development programs, only 568 families had received their first package of assistance. Moreover, fumigation campaigns without alternative development threaten the very goals they claim to support. They fuel a mistrust in the national government, as communities are forced by the campaigns to flee their homes and move elsewhere in search of food. Individuals in these areas often turn to the guerrillas or paramilitaries in search of security, exacerbating the violent conflict and undermining the rule of law in the region. An abandonment of the fumigation policy will help to strengthen the relationship between farmers in these areas and the national government, which will help eradication efforts in the long term. A recent study by the conservative think tank, Rand Corporation, rightly notes that the aerial fumigation of coca crops is backfiring politically. They say: ``Absent viable economic alternatives [such as crop substitution and infrastructure development], fumigation may simply displace growers to other regions and increase support for the guerrillas.'' Next, I don't believe that fumigation solves the problem of coca cultivation, but simply shifts the problem from one area to another. In a New York Times interview with Juan de Jesus Cardenas, governor of the Huila province, reporter Juan Forero wrote the following: ``the governor of Huila said regional leaders across the southern area of Colombia believed that defoliation would simply drive farmers to cultivate coca and poppies in other regions. `That is what happened with defoliation of Putumayo, with the movement of displaced people into Narino,' said the governor.'' Likewise, our Ambassador to Colombia, Mrs. Anne Patterson, has acknowledged that coca had appeared for the first time in the eastern departments of Arauca and Vichada. Fumigation without adequate alternative development programs in place creates a vacuum in the local economy and food supply. This causes coca growers to flee and move deeper into the agrarian frontier, where they replant coca, often twice as much, as an insurance policy. This causes deforestation and instability among residents indigenous to the new areas of production. This has implications not only on ecology, but also on regional security. Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela, have been and will increasingly be affected by massive population flows caused by aerial eradication. Frankly, I do not want to be responsible for contributing to an already devastating humanitarian catastrophe. Putting aside these concerns, I must ask: ``to date, just how effective have our efforts been at eradicating coca?'' Regrettably, the answer is--not very good! Recent estimates by U.S. analysts report that there are now at least 336,000 acres of coca in Colombia, far higher than earlier estimates. The United Nations, using different methodology, put the amount even higher for last year's major growing season--402,000 acres. Although about 123,000 acres of coca plants have been fumigated under Plan Colombia, cultivation increased by 11 percent last year. What are we accomplishing here? There is a way out. Local governments have pledged to eradicate coca- without harmful fumigation; I think they deserve a chance. In May, six governors from southern Colombia, the region where most of Colombia's coca is grown, presented ``Plan Sur,'' a comprehensive strategy for coca elimination, alternative development, and support for the peace process. The plan opposes fumigation as destructive and unnecessary. The governors ask that communities have the chance to manually eradicate their crops, and call for sufficient alternative development funding. Twice this year, I have met with these governors, as well as representatives from the Colombian House and Senate, and NGO leaders. They are an impressive, courageous group. In their visit to Washington in March, four of the governors from southern Colombia, led by Ivan Guerrero of Putumayo, denounced fumigation and called for a more humane and sustainable approach to coca eradication. Governor Jaramillo Martinez of Tolima stated: ``fumigation is not working as expected. It is displacing people and continuing to deforest the jungle. We need to give these farmers the opportunity to grow other crops.'' I am in full agreement. The present course is not only destructive, but also ineffective. Meanwhile, opposition to fumigation continues to mount. Numerous mayors from southern Colombia support the governors in their call to change the policy. And, prompted by these same concerns, other prominent officials like Carlos Ossa, the nation's general comptroller, have called for a suspension of spraying. In July, Judge Gilberto Reyes ordered ``the immediate suspension of the entire fumigation project''; it seems he, too, wants definitive answers on the effects of glyphosate. However, President Pastrana's government continues to spray large swaths of territory. Frankly, the decision to proceed despite widespread opposition was a disappointment. In a country that has struggled to promote democracy and lawfulness, surely this was the wrong course of action. Yet I refuse to give up on Colombia and its brave citizenry. I believe there are many positive steps the United States can take to reduce drug production and promote peace and democracy in Colombia and the Andes. I join Senator Feingold in opposing only those parts of this package that damage human rights and the environment--not the bulk of the assistance for alternative development, judicial support and interdiction efforts through the police. In concluding, I believe there must be a moratorium on further fumigation until alternative development is implemented. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Leahy saw fit to include language that would withhold funding for aerial fumigation without first determining and reporting to Congress on the health and safety effects of the chemicals being used, and the manner of their application. Our decisions should reflect the will of the Colombian people. Colombian governors, parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and activists have all called for an end to spraying. Too much is riding on our decisions, made so far away. I further believe we should play a more effective role by helping create genuine economic alternatives for the peasant farmers and others involved in the Andean drug trade. As the failure of our current policy shows, the most that can be expected from the strategy of eradication and interdiction is moving the areas of production from one country to another and thereby spreading the problems associated with the drug market. Finally, we should better combat drug abuse here at home through funding drug treatment and education programs. As long as there is constant demand for cocaine and heroin in our country, peasants in the Andes with no viable alternatives will continue to grow coca and poppies simply to survive. I will summarize this way. When I look at this Andean Counterdrug Initiative and last year's Plan Colombia, I think the intention is right on the mark and in good faith: protecting our children and our citizens, from drugs. The methodology is absolutely flawed. We would actually be doing a much better job if we focused on the demand for the drugs in our own country. I remember when I met with the Defense Minister in Colombia, Mr. Ramirez, he said: We export 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United States. As long as we have this demand, we will continue to do it. Someone will do it. There will come a point when we will look at addiction and make sure we cover this and we will get help to people so they get into treatment programs. We will do what we need to do by way of prevention. That will be far more the answer than this effort. I will focus on the fumigation. I have become increasingly convinced--and I think Senator Feingold talked about this--that it is an extreme, unsustainable policy which I think causes damage to people. The experts will say that the spraying is classified by Monsanto as ``relatively safe''. But the EPA calls it ``most poisonous'', and the World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely poisonous''. Talk to the people living there and listen to them. They are the ones saying they have the rashes, headaches, nausea, and are getting sick. With all due respect, I cannot blame them for being a little skeptical about what all these experts tell them. There is some good language in this foreign operations bill that Senator Leahy worked on saying we have to do a careful study of the health effects of this, which I believe is right on the mark. Talk to the Governors of different regions. They are worried about what this is doing to them. It is easy for us to say it is not a problem. It is easy for Monsanto to say that. I was kidding around with Senator Feingold, and said: I feel like I have some expertise in that I think I am the only U.S. Senator to withstand aerial fumigation. I was sprayed when I was in Colombia--I don't think on purpose. I don't live there. It was just one time, not over and over and over again. The second point that this amendment speaks to--and I pressed the Ambassador, who I think is very good; we have a very good Ambassador. I said to her, ``the social development money was supposed to go with this''. Unfortunately, what we are doing, we are also eradicating legal crops. That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is we are telling campesinos we are going to do the spraying and eradicate the crops without alternatives for them to put food on the table for themselves and their families. The whole idea was, with the spraying we're going to give campesinos the social development money and the viable alternatives for their families. This amendment speaks to that and makes it clear we have to see that social development money on the ground; that is to say, where people live. I join Senator Feingold in this focus on what I call environmental justice. We both have tried, to the best of our ability, to raise the human rights concerns. I did that in an earlier statement today. I will not go over it again. The Leahy language would withhold funding for aerial fumigation without first determining and reporting to Congress on the health and safety effects of the chemicals being used and the manner of their application. It is important that language be implemented. I say that on the floor of the Senate. Many Colombian governors, parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and activists have called for an end to the spraying. Between the focus of this amendment, with the Leahy language, the emphasis we have on this amendment on the alternative economic developments--and again I say one more time, since I have already spoken to the best of my ability on human rights--it will make a lot more difference when we deal with the demand for it here in our own country. That is what will make a difference. My hope is this amendment will be accepted. I thank the Senator for his effort. I don't want to hold up the progress of the bill. I thank Senator Leahy for his statement about this foreign operations appropriations bill. I think it was a very important statement. In particular, I say to my colleagues, I think probably people in the United States of America will no longer be isolationist again. People are painfully aware of the interconnections of the world in which we live. Many of these countries are our neighbors whether we want them to be so or not. I think there is much more of a focus on the world. We understand now that we ignore the world at our own peril. This is a good piece of legislation overall. I presented my critique of Plan Colombia, and I would like to see some things change. I think we have done our very best through some amendments and speaking out. As long as we are talking about this world in which we live, I want to mention, and I will do this in 3 minutes, on September 11--everybody has talked about it--but I have my own framework for thinking about this and I just want to mention it. In 1940 and 1941, the Germans engaged in an unprecedented bombing of civilians in Great Britain to weaken civilian opposition to Nazism, and 20,000 citizens were killed, murdered. On September 11, almost 6,000 Americans, innocent civilians, were murdered. Therefore, I think there is absolute moral justification for taking the kind of action we believe we must take so terrorists don't have free rein, to try to prevent this from happening again. That is why I reject the arguments about what were the underlying causes of the hatred or violence. I said to friends, some who make that argument, you never ask me to give a speech about what caused those men to murder Matthew Shepard, a gay man in Wyoming. How could they have that hatred? They murdered him. Murder is murder. Camus said murder is never legitimate. Here is the question I have. In trying to achieve this goal, I think that force, unfortunately--and for me, the military option, the use of force, is always the last option--is one of the options that is necessary. In the end, I think the question is: Do we make this a better world, this journey we are taking? I have spoken of humanitarian assistance. But the other point I want to make is, over and over again, we should speak on the floor, I understand that this is easier said than done, but reports of innocent people being murdered in a nursing home or hospital are concerning. I have no reason to believe that those who are carrying out the military campaign are not making every effort to keep this away from innocent civilians. I have no reason to believe that they are not making every effort. But I will tell you, we have to be concerned every single time our military action, our bombing, leads to the death of an innocent civilian in Afghanistan. These people are not our enemies. Every time it happens, even though it is inadvertent, never on purpose, it is a contradiction of the values we live by. It does us no good when it comes to the rest of the Muslim and Islamic world. So I would like to continue to make the appeal that in carrying this out with the use of force, the highest priority must be to avoid the loss of innocent life in Afghanistan. As President Bush said, these Afghans are among the poorest people in the world. They are not our enemies. The terrorists and those who harbor terrorists are our enemies. The Afghans are not our enemies. It is a tragedy, and I deeply regret the fact that there are innocent Afghans who lost their lives as a result of the bombing. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kansas, we are in the process of getting the colloquy copy. The Senator from Kansas and I have come to talk about some legislation we have done together that deals with one of the horrible aspects of this global economy; namely, the trafficking of women and girls and sometimes boys and men for purposes of forcing them into prostitution and some really deplorable labor conditions. I wonder whether the Senator from Kansas might give us a little bit of context, and then we will quickly do this colloquy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief. I want to respond to my colleague from Florida. First of all, the Senator from Florida is about as committed to this region of the world, and to the country of Colombia, as anybody in the Senate. I understand that. This is just a respectful difference of opinion we have. The two members of the Colombian Congress my colleague spoke about were killed by paramilitaries, the AUC, not by the FARC or ELN, the guerrillas. Although I agree that the FARC and ELN are terrorist organizations and should be listed as such, so is the AUC, which is now listed as a terrorist organization. I will go into this in a moment because I think it is an important point. There are reasons we do not want to put an additional $71 million into this package without much more accountability when it comes to human rights and who is committing the violence. I also want to point out that of the money we are talking about, the $71 million, a lot of that money in this package goes to disaster relief, goes to refugees, goes to combating HIV/AIDS, goes to public health, goes to education. I think we are probably a lot better off in a foreign operations bill with these priorities than we are putting an additional $71 million into this package. I also have, which I think is very relevant to this debate, an EFE News, Spain piece, the headline of which is ``Colombian Paramilitaries Kidnap 70 Farmers to Pick Coca Leaves.'' The truth is, the FARC and ELN, these are not Robin Hood organizations; they are into narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. But so is the AUC and the paramilitary. The problem is this effort, Plan Colombia, has been all too one- sided. If it was truly counternarcotics, we would see just as much effort by the Government and by the military focused on the AUC and their involvement in drug trafficking as we see vis-a-vis ELN and FARC. But we don't see that. There are other reasons we can make better use of this $71 million. Since we started funding Plan Colombia, unfortunately we have seen a dramatic increase in paramilitary participation. By the way, let me also point out that on the whole question of the war against drugs, not only do I think we would be much better off spending money on reducing demand in our own country--there is a reason why Colombia exports 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United States every year or more, and that is because of the demand. We ought to get serious about reducing the demand in our own country. As long as there is demand, somebody is going to grow it and somebody is going to make money and you can fumigate here and fumigate there and it will just move from one place to another. My colleague from Florida talked about this effective effort, but the United Nations, with a conservative methodology, pointed out that although 123,000 acres of coca plants have been fumigated under Plan Colombia, cultivation increased 11 percent last year. Cultivation increased 11 percent last year. Senator Feingold and I will have an amendment and we will talk about the fumigation and we will see where the social development money is that was supposed to come with the fumigation. That was supposed to be part of Plan Colombia. We are also going to be saying we ought to involve the local people who live in these communities in decisions that are made about this aerial spraying. There are health and safety effects. We can raise those questions. But it is a little naive to believe these campesinos are not going to continue to grow coca if they are not given alternatives, and the social development money has just not been there. What I want to focus on, which is why I am opposed to the Graham amendment, is the human rights issues. The ranks of the AUC and paramilitary groups continue to swell. The prime targets are human rights workers, trade unionists, drug prosecutors, journalists, and unfortunately two prominent legislators, murdered not by FARC or ELN but murdered by AUC, with the military having way too many ties--the military that we support --with the paramilitary at the brigade level. I objected to such a huge infusion of military assistance to the Colombian security forces when civilian management remained weak, and the ties between the military and paramilitaries were so notorious and strong. Since Plan Colombia funding began pouring into Colombia, we have seen a massive increase in paramilitary participation and its incumbent violence. The ranks of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and other paramilitary groups continue to swell. Their prime targets: human rights workers, trade unionists, judges, prosecutors, journalists, and myriad other civilians. The linkages between Colombia's security forces and paramilitary organizations are long and historic. Everybody agrees, including the Colombian Ministry of Defense, that the paramilitaries account for 75 percent of the killings in Colombia. The media and international human rights groups continue to show evidence of tight links between the military and human rights violators within paramilitary groups. The U.S. State Department, the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are among the organizations who have documented that the official Colombian military remains linked closely with paramilitaries and collaborates in the atrocities. According to the Colombian Committee of Jurists (CCJ), ``[i]n the case of the paramilitaries, one cannot underestimate the collaboration of government forces.'' According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the offical Colombian military has in some cases created paramilitary units to carry out assassinations. The State Department's September 2000 report itself mentions ``credible allegations of cooperation with paramilitary groups, including instances of both silent support and direct collaboration by members of the armed forces.'' Likewise, in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released in February 2001, the State Department reported that ``the number of victims of paramilitary attacks during the year increased.'' It goes on to say: ``members of the security forces sometimes illegally collaborated with paramilitary forces. The armed forces and the police committed serious violations of human rights throughout the year.'' More from State Department Reports: The Government's human rights record remained poor; there were some improvements in the legal framework and in institutional mechanisms, but implementation lagged, and serious problems remain in many areas. Government security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including extrajudical killings. Despite some prosecutions and convictions, the authorities rarely brought higher- ranking officers of the security forces and the police charged with human rights offenses to justice, and impunity remains a problem. Members of the security forces collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances allowing such groups to pass through roadbacks, sharing information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition. Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary forces find a ready support base within the military and police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas. Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a report titled ``The `Sixth Division': Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia.'' It contains charges that Colombian military and police detachments continue to promote, work with, support, profit from, and tolerate paramilitary groups, treating them as a force allied to and compatible with their own. The ``Sixth Division'' is a phrase Colombians use to refer to paramilitary groups, seen to act as simply another part of the Colombian military. The Colombian Army has five divisions. In the report, Human Rights Watch focuses on three Colombian Army brigades: the Twenty-Fourth, Third, and Fifth Brigades. At their most brazen, the relationships described in this report involve active coordination during military operations between government and paramilitary units; communication via radios, cellular telephones, and beepers; the sharing of intelligence, including the names of suspected guerrilla collaborators; the sharing of fighters, including active-duty soldiers serving in paramilitary units and paramilitary commanders lodging on military bases; the sharing of vehicles, including army trucks used to transport paramilitary fighters; coordination of army roadblocks, which routinely let heavily- armed paramilitary fighters pass; and payments made from paramilitaries to military officers for their support. President Andres Pastrana has publicly deplored paramilitary atrocities. But the armed forces have yet to take the critical steps necessary to prevent future killings by suspending high ranking security force members suspected of supporting these abuses. This failure has serious implications for Colombia's international military donors, especially the United States. So far, however, the United States has failed to fully acknowledge this situation, meaning that military units implicated in abuses continue to receive U.S. aid. Human Rights Watch contends that the United States has violated the spirit of its own laws and in some cases downplayed or ignored evidence of continuing ties between the Colombian military and paramilitary groups in order to fund Colombia's military and lobby for more aid, including to a unit implicated in a serious abuse. Although some members of the military have been dismissed by President Pastrana, it appears that many military personnel responsible for egregious human rights violations continue to serve and receive promotions in the Colombian military. For example, according to a Washington Office on Latin America, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joint report, General Rodrigo Quinones, Commander of the Navy's First Brigade was linked to 57 murders of trade unionists, human rights workers and community leaders in 1991 and 1992. He also played a significant role in a February 2000 massacre. A civilian judge reviewing the case of one of his subordinates stated that Quinones' guilt was ``irrefutable'' and the judge could not understand how Quinones was acquitted in a military court. Nevertheless, he was promoted to General in June 2000. According to the Colombian Attorney General's office, another general, Carlos Ospina Ovalle, commander of the Fourth Brigade, had extensive ties to military groups. He and his brigade were involved in the October 1997 El Aro massacre, wherein Colombian troops surrounded and maintained a perimeter around the village while residents were rounded up and four were executed. General Ospina Ovalle also was promoted. In the State Department's January 2001 report Major Jesus Maria Clavijo was touted as an example of a successful detention of a military officer associated with the paramilitaries. Yet, by several NGO accounts he ``remains on active duty and is working in military intelligence, an area that has often been used to maintain links to paramilitary groups.'' Colombian and international human rights defenders are under increased surveillance, intimidation, and threats of attack by paramilitary groups. According to a recent Amnesty International press release, two men identifying themselves as members of a paramilitary group approached members of Peace Brigades International, threatened them with a gun and declared PBI to be a ``military target.'' Members of Colombian human rights groups such as the Association of Family Members of the Detained and Disappeared and the Regional Corporation for the Defense of Human Rights have been ``disappeared,'' murdered in their homes and harassed with death threats. Despite reports to the military and requests for help, Colombian authorities seemingly have failed to take significant steps on behalf of the human rights groups. The systematic, mass killing of union leaders and their members by paramilitaries in Colombia can only be described as genocide. There has been a dramatic escalation in violations against them--kidnapping, torture, and murder--and the response by the Colombian authorities in the face of this crisis has been negligible. These attacks are an affront to the universally recognized right to organize. One hundred and thirty-five trade unionists, both leaders and members, were assassinated during the year, bringing the total number of trade unionists killed since 1991 to several thousand. At least another 1,600 others have received death threats over the last three years, including 180 in 2000; 37 were unfairly arrested and 155 had to flee their home region. A further 24 were abducted, 17 disappeared and 14 were the victims of physical attacks. (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions--10 October 2001. Colombia: Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights--2001). I would like to share this quote with my colleagues; it will reveal the true nature of the situation in Colombia. The quote is attributed to Carlo Castano, head of the AUC, the largest paramilitary group in Colombia): ``We have reasons for killing all those we do. In the case of trade unionists, we kill them because they prevent others from working.'' Most of the union killings have been carried out by Castano's AUC, because they view union organizers as subversives. One of the most recent killings occurred on June 21, when the leader of Sinaltrainal-- the union that represents Colombia Coca-Cola workers--Oscar Dario Soto Polo was gunned down. His murder brings to seven the number of unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were targeted and killed by paramilitaries. I recently met with the new leader of Sinaltrainal, Javier Correa. In our meeting, he described the daily threats to his life, and the extremely dangerous conditions he and his family are forced to endure. In his quiet, gentle manner he told me about the kidnaping of his 3- year-old son and his mother, both at the hands of the paramilitaries. Frankly, I fear for his life and that of his family. In the wake of this meeting, I dread news from the Colombian press, mainly out of fear of what I may read. In response to these threats, the United Steelworkers of America recently sued Coca-Cola in Federal court for its role in such violent attacks on labor, and other large corporations are being investigated. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the vast majority of trade union murders are committed by either the Colombian state itself--e.g. army, police and DAS (security department)--or its indirect agents, the right-wing paramilitaries. On both of my visits to Colombia, I heard repeated reports of military-paramilitary collusion throughout the country, including in the southern departments of Valle, Cauca, and Putamayo, as well as in the city of Barrancabermeja, which I visited in December and March. Consistently, the military, in particular the army, was described to me as tolerating, supporting, and actively coordinating paramilitary operations, which often ended in massacres. I was also told that too often detailed information was supplied to the military and other authorities about the whereabouts of armed groups, the location of their bases, and yet authorities were unwilling or unable to take measures to protect the civilian population or to pursue their attackers. While in Colombia, I discussed with General Carreno the status and location of the San Rafael--de Lebrija--paramilitary base. The base is operating openly in an area under his command, and its activities have directly caused much of the bloodshed in the region. Almost 7 months after our meeting, however, no effective action has been taken to curtail the operations of the San Rafael paramilitary base, and that it remains open for business. The Colombian military knows where the base is, and who operates it. The Colombian government knows. I know, for heaven's sake. But, just in case they don't know, I will tell them here. The base is on the Magdalena River about 130 kilometers north of Barrancabermeja on the same side of the River as Barranca, northwest of the Municipio of Rio Negro, in the Department of Santander. It is from San Rafael de Lebrija that the paramilitaries launch their operations to dominate the local governments and the local community organizations in the area around and including Barrancabermeja. It is there that they organize their paramilitary operations of intimidations of the citizens of the area including the attacks on Barrancabermeja. It is from there that they stage the murder of innocent civilians like Alma Rosa Jaramillo and Eduardo Estrada. These brave volunteers were brutally assassinated in July, simply because they stand for democracy, civil rights, and human rights. They are against the war, and have no enemies in the conflict. They were both leaders in the Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio, located in Barranca, lead by my friend Father ``Pacho'' Francisco De Roux. I call on the Colombian government and military to show the U.S. Senate that they are serious about cracking down on paramilitaries. Close San Rafael. Close Mirafores and Simon Bolivar, also located in Barranca, in the northeast quadrant of the city. Close San Blas, south of the Municipio of Simiti near San Pablo in the South of the Department of Bolivar. Close Hacienda Villa Sandra, a base about one mile north of Puerto Asis, the largest town in Putumayo. Is this too much to ask? From the annual report on Colombia, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) (The OAS on paramilitary bases): . . . observations . . . confirm that the free operation of patrol checks, paramilitary bases and acts perpetrated by the AUC in the areas of Putumayo (La Hormiga, La Dorada, San Miguel, Puerto Asis, Santa Ana), Antioquia (El Jordan, San Carlos), y Valle (La Iberia, Tulua) are being investigated mainly in the disciplinary jurisdiction. It further says: The Commission is particularly troubled by the situation in Barrancabermeja, Department of Santander. Complaints are periodically received concerning paramilitary incursions and the establishment of new paramilitary camps in the urban districts. The complaints report that even though civilian and military authorities have been alerted, paramilitary groups belonging to the AUC have settled in the Mirafores and Simon Bolivar districts in the northeast quadrant of the city, and have spread to another 32 districts in the southern, southeastern, northern and northeastern sectors. Arrest the notorious paramilitary leaders who open and sustain these bases. Nearly everyone knows who they are, where they operate. I know, and I've only been to Colombia twice. They are operated by the AUC, led by the likes of Carlos Castano, Julian Duque, Alexander ``El Zarco'' Londono, Gabriel Salvatore ``El Mono'' Mancuso Gomez, and Ramon Isaza Arango. The men on this short list--a mere five paramilitaries--account for over 40 arrest warrants over several years. They are responsible for untold cases of kidnaping, torture, and murder. Go get them. In its annual report on Columbia, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) addressed the problem of paramilitary groups and their bases of operations. Here is what they said: The Commission must point out . . . that although the human rights violations committed by paramilitary are frequently investigated by the regular courts, in many cases, the arrest warrants the courts issue are not executed, especially when they involve the upper echelons of the AUC and the intellectual authors. This creates a climate of impunity and fear. A case in point is the fact that in 2000, the highest ranking chief of the AUC, Carlos Castano, has had access to the national and international media and contacts at the ministerial level, yet the numerous arrest warrants against him for serious human rights violations, have never been executed. The Colombian government seems to have accepted paramilitary take overs, in places like Barranca. The Colombian government and military must find a way to respond to the paramilitary threat. It is a threat to the rights of free speech, free assembly, and moreover, the rule of law in Colombia. Mr. President, as I have said all along, if we are really serious about counter-narcotics we should strongly encourage the Colombian government to act boldly and officiously in response to the increasing strength of the paramilitaries, who are actively engaged in narco- trafficking. Carlos Castano has admitted that about 70 percent of his organization's revenues come from taxing drug traffickers. He is listed as a major Colombian drug trafficker in recent documents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Drug trafficking is a lucrative business for all parties involved in the Colombian conflict. The fact is, many military personnel are finding that paramilitary work is simply more lucrative than military pay. In addition, they are not forced to comply with even the minimum in standards for conduct. Yet, this begets another crucial question: where do all these vetted officers and soldiers end up? I fear the answer again lies in the paramilitaries. After all, their ranks have swelled dramatically in recent years. To date, the debate surrounding Plan Colombia has been disingenuous. Why has there been little effort to combat paramilitary drug lords? I'm afraid we may be exposing this plan for what it really is; counterinsurgency against the leftist guerrillas, rather than a sincere effort to stop the flow of drugs. A recent Rand report suggested that the U.S. government should abandon this charade, in favor of an all-out military offensive on guerrilla forces. Lamentably, I do not see any improvement on the rule of law front. Since Plan Colombia started, and the requisite oversight, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the power and authority of a Colombian military with a long history of corruption and abuse. Last summer, President Pastrana signed a new national security law that gives the Colombian military sweeping new powers. Among other things, the law allows military commanders to declare martial law in combat zones, suspending powers of civilian authorities and some constitutional protections afforded civilians. The law also shortens the period for carrying out human rights investigations of police and army troops, allowing soldiers to assume some of the tasks that had been assigned to civilian investigators. Other controversial aspects of the law are provisions that allow the military to hold suspects for longer periods before turning them over to civilian judges. Under the old law, government troops had to free suspected drug traffickers and guerrillas if they were unable to turn them over to civilian authorities within 36 hours. I am very concerned about the implications of these provisions. Like many, I fear that torture or other human rights violations may increase as a result. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia believes, as I do, that some of the provisions of the law are either unconstitutional or violate international human rights treaties. I have conveyed my objections about this law to the Colombian government. By pouring another $135 million into the coffers of the Colombian military, we will be increasing their power further without adequately strengthening checks on military abuses. Frankly, I feel this is the wrong direction. I am pleased that my colleagues, especially Senator Leahy, have fought to attach safeguards to U.S. military aid to ensure that the Colombian armed forces are: First, cooperating fully with civilian authorities, in prosecuting and punishing in civilian courts those members credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights or aided or abetted paramilitary groups; second, severing links, including intelligence sharing, at the command, battalion, and brigade levels, with paramilitary groups, and executing outstanding arrest warrants for members of such groups; and third, investigating attacks against human rights defenders, trade unionists, and government prosecutors, investigators and civilian judicial officials, and bringing the alleged perpetrators to justice. Moreover, the paramilitaries undermine the peace process. How can guerrillas--be they ELN or FARC--agree with the government about future political inclusion in the context of a cease fire without first defining the problem of paramilitary groups? In early 2001, President Pastrana agreed to create a DMZ for the ELN in the northern state of Bolivar. This backfired badly when ELN rebels were chased out by members of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC. The ELN subsequently pulled out of the peace process. Frustration with the peace process on the part of the military and the country's elites has helped transform the paramilitary AUC into a major player in the conflict. Some estimates of the strength and size of the AUC are as high as 9,500 fighters. In my view, this resurgence can be directly linked to the flawed peace process. The AUC poses a real threat to the FARC and the ELN, who may now be forced to co-operate with each other more closely. That is bad news for the security situation, particularly given the boost it could provide to the weaker ELN. What's even more telling is the trend of FARC guerrillas joining the ranks of the paramilitaries. Their motives are based on greed. Paramilitaries, financed by narcotraffickers, are now using ex- gerrillas as scouts and officers, to combat the FARC and ELN more forcefully. This amounts to a deadly coalition. The narcotrafficers have money without limits, the paramilitaries use violence without scruples, and the military supplies inside information and protection. Press reports detailing U.S. reluctance to paticipate, even as an observer, in peace talks between President Pastrana and FARC leaders only serve to increase my concerns. All sides need to encourage a continued dialogue among all sectors of civil society, but the escalating violence makes that increasingly impossible. Some of my colleagues have argued that the present campaign against terrorism merits our continued military involvement in Colombia. These funds, it is said, are going toward counternarcotics operations, targeting the FARC and ELN, both of which are on the State Department's terrorist list. I am well aware that paramilitary groups are not the only armed actors committing human rights violations in Colombia, and I am no friend of these guerrilla movements. In fact, I have consistently decried their repressive tactics and blatant disregard for international human rights standards. I was deeply saddened by recent reports from Colombia which suggest that the FARCC kidnapped and murdered Consuelo Aruajo, the nation's former culture minister. She was a beloved figure across Colombia, known for her promotion of local culture and music. So, I would like to take this opportunity to again call upon the FARC to suspend kidnappings, killings and extortion of the civilian population and the indigenous communities. That said, I further believe that we should be more forceful in going after paramilitary death squads, with longstanding ties to some in the Colombian military and government. Several weeks ago, Representative Luis Alfredo Colmenares, a member of the opposition Liberal Party was assassinated in Bogota. We do not yet know who perpetrated this despicable act, but most signs point to paramilitary death squads, AUC. These same paramilitaries are believed to be responsible for the October 2 murder of representative Octavio Sarmiento, also a member of the Liberal Party. Both men represented the province of Arauca, Northeast of the capital, on the Venezuelan frontier--a region that has become increasingly ravaged by the ever- widening war. I was pleased that Secretary Powell made the decision to add the AUC to the State Department's terrorist list. It was a sign that the United States oppposes threats--from both the left and right--in the hemisphere, and I am encouraged by this development. Yet, I do not believe it goes far enough. As Senators, we should embrace the challenge of making a bold effort to quell paramilitary violence. Wwe must not shirk from that responsibility. The way out of this mess is nothing particularly new or innnovative. What has been lacking in Bogota and Washington is the political will to take the risks to make the old proposals work. The Congress and the Bush administration must insist on credible and far-reaching efforts to stop the paramilitaries. Further, we must provide serious and sustained support for the peace process, and work to deliver economic assistance programs that work instead of dramatic military offensives. Finally, we need to embrace demand reduction as the most effective mechanism for success in the campaign against drugs. General Tapias, the highest ranking military person in Colombia was coming to meet with me. It was the day the Hart Building was evacuated. We talked on the phone. I know the Presiding Officer spent some time in Colombia. I said to him on the basis of the good advice from a wonderful human rights priest, Francisco De Roux, General: (A) thank you for trying to do a better job of breaking the connection between the military and the paramilitary. Thank you for trying to do that. We know you have made that effort. (B) I said thank you for going after the FARC and the ELN. The third question I asked him was when it comes to the murder of civil society people such as the people I met on two trips to Barrancabermeja--some of whom I met, some of whom are no longer alive-- people who work with Francisco De Roux, probably the best economic development organization in Colombia--they are murdered with impunity. I said to the general: Where are you? Where is the military? And where are the police in defending the civil society?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell for their work. I will have a number of amendments. Senator Kennedy wants to speak briefly, and I ask my colleague from Illinois whether he also wants to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow Senator Kennedy and be able to lay down the first amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I honestly and sincerely say it is one of the best speeches I have heard on the floor of the Senate in the 11 years I have been here. It is very connected to values I hold dear. I think what Senator Kennedy just said, especially if it gets translated into our doing the work and passing this legislation, is so important. These times call on all of us to be our own best selves. I believe that is what the Senator's speech has called for us to do here, and for all Americans, we need each other as never before. We need each other as never before in relation to the physical security challenges, in relation to the uncertainty of the world, and we need each other as never before in terms of how we help one another to be strong in our own Nation. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for a marvelous speech.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have to make sure it translates into getting work done.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. I think there may be support for this amendment. I think there should be. I will not take a lot of time. Let me explain why I think it is so important the Senate go on record. I will not spend a lot of time on statistics. There are 7.5 million people inside Afghanistan who are threatened by famine or severe hunger as cold weather approaches. President Bush has made it crystal clear that our military action is not against ordinary Afghans; it is against terrorists and their supporters. Ordinary Afghans are among the poorest and most beleaguered people on the planet. They were our allies during the cold war. By the way, this amendment I send to the desk with Senator Boxer, as well. Yet right now, on present course, time is not neutral and time is not on our side, and, more importantly, time is not on the side of ordinary Afghans. There will be at least another 100,000 children who will starve to death. The winter months are approaching. Even before the world focused on it as a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, Afghanistan was on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, the site of the greatest crisis in hunger and refugee displacement in the world. Now the worsening situation on the ground is almost unimaginable. After four years of relentless drought, the worst in three decades, and the total failure of the Taliban government in administering the country, four million people have abandoned their homes in search of food in Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan and elsewhere, while those left behind eat meals of locusts and animal fodder. Mr. President, 7.5 million people inside the country are threatened by famine or severe hunger as cold weather approaches, according to the United Nations. As President Bush made clear, we are waging a campaign against terrorists, not ordinary Afghans, who are some of the poorest and most beleaguered people on the planet and were our allies during the cold war. Yet, the current military air strikes and the disintegration of security is worsening the humanitarian situation on the ground. Aid organizations are increasingly concerned about their ability to deliver aid to Afghanistan while the United States continues its bombing campaign. Several aid organizations have been accidentally bombed by the U.S. in the last week. In addition to these accidental bombings, law and order are breaking down inside Afghanistan. Reports indicate that thieves have broken into several aid organization offices, beat up the Afghan staff and stolen vehicles, spare parts, and other equipment. Warehouses of the International Red Cross in Kabul were bombed yesterday. The ICRC says that the warehouses were clearly marked white with a large red cross visible from the air. One worker was wounded and is now in stable condition. One warehouse suffered a direct hit, which destroyed tarpaulins, plastic sheeting, and blankets, while another containing food caught on fire and was partially destroyed. The Pentagon claimed responsibility for the bombing later in the day, adding that they ``regret any innocent casualties,'' and that the ICRC warehouses were part of a series of warehouses that the United States believed were used to store military equipment. ``There are huge needs for the civilian population, and definitely it will hamper our operations,'' Robert Monin, head of the International Red Cross' Afghanistan delegation, said in Islamabad, Pakistan. Another missile struck near a World Food Program warehouse in Afsotar, wounding one laborer. The missile struck as trucks were being loaded for an Oxfam convoy to the Hazarajat region, where winter will begin closing off the passes in the next two weeks. Loading was suspended and the warehouse remains closed today. Last week, four U.N. workers for a demining operation were accidentally killed when a bomb struck their office in Kabul. In response to the dangers threatening humanitarian operations, the Oxfam America president said, ``It is now evident that we cannot, in reasonable safety, get food to hungry Afghan people. We've reached the point where it is simply unrealistic for us to do our job in Afghanistan. We've run out of food, the borders are closed, we can't reach our staff, and time's running out.'' The World Food Program was feeding 3.8 million people a day in Afghanistan even before the bombing campaign began. These included 900,000 internally displaced people at camps. Although the U.S. military has dropped thousands of ready to eat meals, everyone agrees that only truck convoys can move sufficient food into Afghanistan before winter. As of last Friday, there were only two convoys confirmed to have gotten through. WFP announced that two more convoys since the bombing campaign started were nearing Kabul. Complications and delays in delivering emergency food supplies to Afghanistan could cause rising death rates from starvation and illness as winter sets in. Many of the high mountain passes will be closed by mid-November due to 20-30 foot snows. Aid agencies are falling behind in their efforts to deliver enough emergency relief to Afghans to avoid a large loss of life this winter. UNICEF estimates that, in addition to the total of 300,000 Afghan children who die of ``preventable causes'' each year, 100,000 more children might die this winter from hunger and disease. The main reasons for this shortfall in aid are related to security concerns. Aid agencies have withdrawn their international staff, and local staff have attempted to continue the aid programs but have been subjected to intimidation, theft, and harassment. As the United States continues to pound Taliban targets, law and order in some cities is reportedly also breaking down. Truck drivers are unwilling to deliver supplies to some areas for fear of being bombed by the United States, or being attacked by one faction or another. Taliban supporters have obstructed aid deliveries on some occasions. Despite these nightmares, shipment of food and non-food emergency items arrive in Afghanistan daily--but the total shipped is only about one-half of what is needed. The situation is particularly urgent as some of the poorest and most needy areas will be cut-off from overland routes by mid-November. An estimated 600,000 people in the central highlands are dependent upon international food aid, and little is on hand for them now. The food shortfall in Afghanistan may result in an increased flow of refugees to the borders. A flood of refugees to the border would present a different but also challenging set of problems. Clearly, as everyone has said, it is better for them to remain at home than flee to neighboring countries out of hunger. There is no easy solution to this humanitarian crisis. It is complex and requires the international community to take urgent and imaginative action to boost the flow of food inside. The United States should take the lead in helping to devise aggressive and imaginative ways to expand the delivery of food. These could include the creation of humanitarian corridors, the use of existing commercial trading companies and air deliveries to airports that have not yet been bombed. The establishment of humanitarian ground and air corridors should be considered for the secure transportation and distribution of emergency aid. The Administration should push to have some roads or air routes in areas of limited conflict be designated as protected humanitarian routes. Such possible ground and air corridors include Northern Alliance held territory along the border of Tajikstan, and Northern Alliance airfields which have not been bombed. These airfields could be used for a Berlin style airlift to get massive amounts of aid into the country quickly. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 1.5 million additional Afghans could seek to flee the country in coming months due to the ongoing military conflict. All six countries neighboring Afghanistan have closed their borders to refugees both on security grounds and citing an inability to economically provide for more refugees. Thousands have been trapped at borders with no food, shelter, water or medical care. I am introducing a resolution today which addresses this crisis. The text of the resolution states the following: Afghanistan's neighbors should reopen their borders to allow for the safe passage of refugees, and the international community must be prepared to contribute to the economic costs incurred by the flight of desperate Afghan civilians; As the United States engages in military action in Afghanistan, it must work to deliver assistance, particularly through overland truck convoys, and safe humanitarian access to affected populations, in partnership with humanitarian agencies in quantities sufficient to alleviate a large scale humanitarian catastrophe; The United States should contribute to efforts by the international community to provide long-term, sustainable reconstruction and development assistance for the people of Afghanistan, including efforts to protect the basic human rights of women and children. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. There has been a lot of focus on airdrops. The truth of the matter is, airdrops from 50,000 feet--and I know the Presiding Officer was present during the committee hearing we had--are not all that effective. Basically, all of the United Nations, the nongovernment organization, people on the ground have all said that not even 1 percent of the people are helped this way. Secretary Powell and the administration know this. At the same time, the reality is we have to do a couple of different things. If we don't, there will be a lot of innocent people who will starve to death. That is a reality. That is not consistent with our values; that is not who we are. Frankly, if I were to make a political national interest argument-- which I am not comfortable making because I think values enough should dictate what we do--I would say absolutely the worst thing imaginable would be, in the next several weeks or months to come, for there to be a situation where the Bin Ladens of this world were able to use the pictures of starving children in Afghanistan against our country. We don't want that. Colleagues, on present course, that is what will happen. Therefore, there are a number of things we can do. I will go to the wording of the amendment. One is, we need the highest level United States engagement to open the borders, especially the Pakistani border. The administration has spoken about this. It is extremely important. Right now there are lots of refugees amassed at the border who cannot get over. It is a humanitarian crisis. By the way, probably more serious than the 1.5 million refugees we will have, given the dangerous situation for themselves and their loved ones, is the people left behind in Afghanistan. The people who do not try to cross the borders are the poorest of the Afghans. They are the elderly, the most infirm. The second thing I mention today is we have to do a better job. Our Government has to do a better job of efficiently making sure the money we have committed--we have made a generous commitment--actually flows to the United Nations organizations and nongovernmental organizations that are delivering the food. It wasn't until last weekend that the first installment was made. That was $10 million to the United Nations; yesterday, $20 million to the NGO. Some of this was held up by Osama bin Laden. We have to be much more efficient at making sure the money flows to the people who are on the ground to deliver the food. The third point is we are just going to need a more imaginative response, more imaginative action. There are a number of different proposals that have been made, and the resolution is broad and just says we need to make that commitment, for example, opening up humanitarian response corridors. The most effective way to get food to people is going to be over land, by truck convoy. We may need to do a better job of coordination vis-a-vis our military action to open up those corridors and make sure the trucks can move and the food can flow. Another thing is we are probably going to need to take a very serious look at these different airstrips. Airstrips that are in low conflict areas, we have to make sure they are going to be maintained because we may need to do a Berlin-style airdrop and planes actually land and we then get the food to people, which can be very effective. What I am saying today is that we need to put every bit as much effort into the humanitarian relief right now as to the military effort. Both are extremely important. I will just read the wording of the amendment which basically calls on Afghanistan's neighbors to open their borders for safe passage and makes it clear we are going to help with the economic costs and the plight of desperate Afghan civilians. Second, it makes the point that in partnership with humanitarian agencies we have to do everything we can to deliver the food assistance in the most imaginative and effective ways possible. And then third, it talks about the obvious contribution we will make with the international community in terms of long-term sustainable reconstruction development and assistance for the people of Afghanistan. I have decided not to take a lot of time because I believe there will be support. The aid agencies are falling behind in their effort to provide the emergency relief. UNISEF estimates that in addition to the 300,000 Afghan children who die of preventable causes each year, 100,000 more children are going to die this winter as a result of hunger and disease. That is unacceptable. That is unconscionable. So what this first amendment that I have introduced does is it puts the Senate on record with a strong statement that we understand the urgency of getting the humanitarian assistance to the innocent people of Afghanistan. Again, I think this is a powerful and important message for us to deliver. We cannot be silent about this. We cannot put the fact that many, many people could and will starve to death in parentheses. We can't do that. Moreover, I think we can and should and must, as responsible lawmakers, make it crystal clear that there are some things we know need to be done: opening the borders to people, making sure the money flows more efficiently from the United States to these relief organizations, and again find creative new ways of getting them the food. Airdrops alone from 50,000 feet are not going to do the job. I think the administration knows this. I hope there will be yet an even stronger commitment. I believe this statement from the Senate is extremely important. That is why I introduced this first amendment. Mr. President, I think what I am going to do in order to move things forward is I am going to move to the second amendment which deals with Uzbekistan. Basically, it is a reporting requirement that not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this act and then 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the following. This basically we want to get an accounting of how our money is used by the military there. This is a human rights amendment. I will explain it in a moment, after I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Until both managers are on the floor, I will lay aside the first amendment and then we can deal with both of them. I think both amendments will be accepted.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, I am actually trying to help the managers move along. I think I will probably be able to do this in less than 15 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks regarding this amendment, the Senator from West Virginia have the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The reason I offer this amendment requiring a report to Congress with respect to our efforts in Uzbekistan is that prior to the tragedies of September 11, few of us knew anything about this central Asian country. Yet today Uzbekistan has become one of our most important allies in this battle against terrorism. In fact, it is one of only two states bordering Afghanistan which is willing to host overt U.S. military operations to find Osama bin Laden. Although we should welcome the cooperation of Uzbekistan in our efforts, we cannot overlook what is happening in Uzbekistan itself. Since 1997, this Government has used the threat of terrorism to justify a total crackdown on independent, peaceful Muslims who pray at home, study the Koran in small groups, belong to peaceful Islamic organizations not registered with the state, or disseminate literature not approved by the state. Colleagues, I am pointing to a real dilemma for us. On the one hand, we understand the need for support. On the other hand, it is terribly important that we not uncritically align ourselves with governments which torture citizens. This amendment is an important one, and I want to be clear about what it does. First and foremost, it in no way limits our ability to cooperate with Uzbekistan. We need Uzbekistan in the fight against terrorism, and we must be able to fully cooperate with their Government in that fight. But given the reports of grave abuses against civilians in the name of fighting terrorism, we need to monitor the cooperation. That is what this amendment is about. The amendment requires that not later than 3 months after its enactment the Secretary of State report to appropriate congressional committees on, No. 1, the defense articles, services, and financial assistance provided by the United States to Uzbekistan; No. 2, the use of such articles, services, and assistance by the Armed Forces there, border guards, Ministry of National Security, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and, No. 3, the extent to which any units of these groups engage in a pattern of human rights violations or violations of international law during that period. In his national address on September 20th, President Bush linked the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, IMU, to Osama bin Laden, suggesting the IMU may be a target of U.S. counterterrorism attacks. Last year, the United States included the IMU on its list of terrorist organizations. The Government of Uzbekistan has also targeted the IMU as part of its own counterterrorism efforts. But according to the most recent Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the Government of Uzbekistan has responded to the threat of terrorism by arresting ``hundreds of Islamic leaders and believers on questionable grounds.'' In short, it has used the issue of terrorism to justify a far broader crackdown on peaceful Muslims. It has branded ``independent'' Muslims as ``extremists,'' and sentenced thousands of them to long prison terms without connecting them to the IMU or to any acts recognized as crimes under international law. The Uzbek government has particularly targeted a group known as the Party of Liberation. This is an Islamic group that supports the re- establishment of an Islamic state by peaceful means. Membership in this group or even possession of one of its pamphlets is deemed grounds for arrest and is punishable by up to twenty years in prison. Even prayer draws suspicion and has been cited in court as evidence of subversive intent. According to Human Rights Watch, in one verdict condemning an alleged Party of Liberation member to 18 years in prison, the Judge declared: ``He confessed that in 1996 he started to pray.'' Increasingly, police arrest relatives of those accused of belonging to an unregistered Islamic group. In April 1999, the President of Uzbekistan declared that fathers would be punished for the supposed wrongs of their sons, and brothers and often arrested together and even tortured in each other's presence. According to the Human Rights Watch World Report for 2001, those arrested in Uzbekistan endure the worst torture. The Reports states: ``In addition to hundreds of reports of beatings and numerous accounts of the use of electric shock, temporary suffocation, hanging by the ankles or wrists, removal of fingernails, and punctures with sharp objects, Human Rights Watch received credible reports in 2000 that police sodomized male detainees with bottles, raped them, and beat and burned them in the groin area. Male and female detainees were regularly threatened with rape. Police made such threats in particular against female detainees in the presence of male relatives to force the men to sign self-incriminating statements. Police also regularly threatened to murder detainees or their family members and to place minor children in orphanages.'' Human Rights Watch reports that police torture in Uzbekistan has resulted in at least fifteen deaths in custody in the past two years alone. According to our own Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2000, the government of Uzbekistan's ``poor human rights record worsened, and the Government continued to commit numerous serious abuses.'' ``There were credible reports that security force mistreatment resulted in the deaths of several citizens in custody. Police and the National Security Service tortured, beat, and harassed persons. The security forces arbitrarily arrested or detained pious Muslims and other citizens on false charges, frequently planting narcotics, weapons, or forbidden literature on them.'' ``The Government continues to voice rhetorical support for human rights, but does not ensure these rights in practice.'' Just listen to some of these accounts: Thirty-year-old Komlidin Sattarov was arrested in February 2000 for alleged possession of Party of Liberation leaflets, following his elder brother's conviction for membership in the group. His defender summarized some of the young man's court testimony of his torture by police: He stuck it out for the first one or two days, but then they used electric shock. . . . They put him in a chair and strapped electrodes to his hands, feet, and neck and gave him electric shock. He lost consciousness and then they did it again. He confessed to some of the charges. Then they began to beat him with truncheons, and he agreed to sign everything. Prior to a July and August 2000 trial of seventeen men on charges of Wahabism, a form of Islam, the defendants were held by police and tortured over several months. Gafurjon Tohirov testified in court that he was tortured for more than 2 months, that officers had beaten him on the bottoms of his feet and that the white clothes he had been wearing--he had just returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca--were covered with blood. While beating another defendant, police allegedly concentrated their blows on the young man's already injured kidneys, due to which, according to one source, the defendant agreed to sign a confession. Another accused was allegedly burned with cigarettes and subsequently raped in custody; investigators also allegedly threatened to rape his wife if he refused to give a self-incriminating statement. Once transferred from custody of the National Security Service, SNB, to Tashkent police headquarters in January 2000, this defendant continued to be tortured. A state appointed lawyer allegedly requested medicine for him from his family on January 10, as well as dark trousers to replace his bloodied white ones. They man was kept incommunicado in the basement of police headquarters in Tashkent for sixty-eight days. Dismissing his and other defendants' detailed allegations of torture, a judge of the Tashkent City Court declared on the day of the verdict, ``No one tortured them. There was no written complaint that they were tortured. When they were asked, they couldn't name their torturers . . . [W]e consider their testimony [on torture] as having no grounds.'' When brothers Oibek and Uigun Ruzmetov were arrested on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, on January 1, 1999, their parents were also arrested. Their father on the same day, their mother on January 5. Their mother recounted that she was held for one night in solitary confinement in the district police station, handcuffed naked and given no water. Then they showed her to her son Uigun: They . . . stripped me naked . . . Twice they walked him by me. He looked so bad, he had been completely beaten up. I could only cry, I could not talk to him. They told him. ``Your parents and your wife are also in prison. Your children are in an orphanage. If you don't sign these documents, we'll do something very bad to your wife.'' My son at his trial said that he was told they would rape his wife before his eyes if he did not confess. Mr. President, these stories are incredible. We can not ignore them. To do so implies that in the war against terrorism, anything goes. That kind of attitude will only weaken our war on terrorism, not strengthen it. Eighty percent of the population of Uzbekistan is Muslim. To ignore Uzbek abuses could add fuel to the fire that this is not truly a war on terrorism, but is a war on Islam. We must ensure that anti-terrorism efforts are conducted in a manner that protects religious freedom and other human rights, and we must carefully monitor our cooperation with Uzbekistan to ensure that protection. The amendment I offer here today requiring a report to Congress on the extent to which any Uzbek units receiving US assistance engaged in human rights violations, or violations of international law, will remind the Uzbek government that although we welcome their cooperation, we are also watching them. All I am saying is when you have a group of people in a country who, because of the practice of their faith, are being crushed in this way, and you have examples of torture and rape, to the extent that we are involved with such a country, we ought at least have a monitoring of how the money is spent. I think I will send the statement to Senators because, frankly, it is so graphic, it is difficult to go over in great detail. You are talking about a government that has been involved in widespread abuse of human rights. You are talking about a government that has systematically tortured its citizens. I think at a very minimum in our work with this government, we have to make sure there is a very rigorous reporting of how our money is spent in relation to the military. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside to be accepted as modified.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, after both amendments are accepted, I will yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask whether we might have a voice vote on the amendments, as modified. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on both amendments, as modified.