COLOMBIA AID BILL NEARS APPROVAL

The Senate yesterday endorsed a massive escalation in U.S. military
involvement in Colombia, as lawmakers neared final approval of almost $1
billion in aid the Clinton administration says will begin to stem the flood
of illegal drugs from South America.

In a day-long debate, the Senate roundly defeated amendments that would
have sharply reduced the package, shifted its balance from support of the
Colombian military to increased funding for social and economic programs,
and transferred a substantial part of the funding to domestic drug
treatment programs.

The Colombia funds are part of a larger foreign aid spending bill that was
headed for Senate passage today. In March, the House passed a $1.7 billion
version – more than the $1.6 billion the administration requested for
Colombia – and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said
yesterday that the Senate's $934 million package was likely to be
"increased somewhat" in conference.

Yesterday's action was a major if belated victory for the White House,
which has described the package as essential to preserving Colombia's
struggling democracy as it fights both escalating drug traffic and a civil war.

President Clinton first asked in February for the aid to be approved in an
emergency appropriation. Although the House complied, Lott insisted that
the Colombia aid package be dealt with in the normal Senate appropriations
process, where it languished for months while the administration complained
that Colombia was falling apart.

The administration, still awaiting final action on the overall bill, had no
comment on yesterday's action. The overall Senate bill, at $13.4 billion,
is $1.7 billion less than what the administration asked for to cover U.S.
economic and foreign military assistance, as well as funding for such
organizations as the World Bank and the Peace Corps.

Unlike previous U.S. overseas involvement, particularly in Latin America,
supporters and opponents of the Colombia initiative have been spread across
the political spectrum. Yesterday, senators weighed the seemingly
conflicting priorities of fighting drugs and helping a democratic ally
under siege from the left while defending human rights and the budget and
avoiding wider U.S. involvement in a foreign guerrilla war.

Opponents in yesterday's debate, led by Sens. Paul D. Wellstone (D-Minn.)
and Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), criticized the Colombian military's human
rights record and argued that the United States, in the course of fighting
illegal drugs, would be inexorably drawn into the Colombian government's
decades-long war against leftist guerrillas.

"The capacity of this body for self-delusion seems to this senator to be
unlimited," Gorton said in asking for deep cuts in the package. "Mark my
words, we are on the verge . . . of involvement in a civil war in Latin
America, without the slightest promise that our intervention will be a
success. . . . This is a down payment, and a down payment only. Next year
we are likely to hear we need more money and more men."

Gorton's amendment to cut all but $200 million from the package was
defeated 79 to 19, with 13 Republicans and six Democrats – including
Maryland's Barbara A. Mikulski and Paul S. Sarbanes – in favor. A
Wellstone amendment to transfer $225 million of the money to domestic drug
treatment lost 89 to 11. Two Republicans and nine Democrats, including only
Mikulski among local senators, voted against killing the Wellstone measure.

No senator rose in strong defense of the Colombian military, or denied the
risk of deeper U.S. involvement. Instead, supporters defended the package
as a flawed but vital measure to keep a quickly deteriorating national drug
crisis from becoming worse and to bolster a pro-U.S. government in Latin
America's longest-lasting democracy.

"This is a close national security interest for our own country," said
Lott. "To those worried about slipping toward being involved" in Colombia,
he asked, "Where better to be involved?"

"This is not a perfect package," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.).
But "whether we like it or not, we are engaged . . . in Colombia. This is
not some distant conflict without any ramifications here at home."

According to the White House, Colombian cocaine exports have doubled in the
past two years and now constitute more than 80 percent of the U.S. market.
Colombia also provides an increasing percentage of heroin entering the
country. Several factors complicate U.S. involvement with the Colombian
government, including its long-running war against the largest and
best-financed leftist guerrilla group in the hemisphere, and perhaps in the
world.

The guerrillas – and powerful, privately funded right-wing
paramilitary groups – operate freely in much of Colombia's
drug-producing territory, taxing drug producers and charging traffickers
for protecting their operations. Administration efforts to draw a
distinction between the counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics wars have
been met with skepticism inside and outside Congress.

The paramilitary organizations, originally funded by private landowners and
business leaders to combat the guerrillas in the face of an inept Colombian
military, are held responsible for the bulk of widespread human rights
abuses of civilians. The paramilitaries traditionally have had strong ties
to the Colombian army.

"We're going to give this military a massive infusion of money for a
campaign in southern Colombia," the heart of the drug-producing region,
"with American advisers with them?" Wellstone asked, citing State
Department human rights reports as well as those of international rights
organizations. "The practical effect is to militarize, and escalate the
conflict, not to end it."

Proponents insisted that the package includes sufficient guarantees on
human rights and on keeping U.S. aid, and U.S. personnel, away from the war
against the guerrillas.

In addition to containing only slightly more than half the amount of aid
approved by the House, the Senate package differs in other ways, including
more money for regional anti-drug programs in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador.
The funds for those increases come from the most significant Senate change:
the substitution of 60 Huey II helicopters worth $188.5 million for the
$388 million requested by the administration – and approved by the
House – for 30 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.

The change came after an intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying battle
between Texas-based Bell Helicopters Textron, which manufactures the Hueys,
and Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., which makes the Black Hawks.
The Pentagon has argued that the Black Hawks, while costing more per
aircraft, can fly higher and farther and carry more troops to
drug-producing areas. Opponents maintained it was better to get twice as
many aircraft for less money.

A Dodd amendment to leave the helicopter decision to the Pentagon and the
Colombian government – effectively guaranteeing the Connecticut-made
Black Hawks – drew heavy fire from Huey proponents.

"There's no reason for anybody to be ashamed to fly a Huey into combat,"
said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
who has voiced concern about the cost of the administration package. With
the expensive Black Hawks and their high operating costs, he said, "you're
going to start a trend line that this budget cannot sustain into the future."

Dodd's amendment failed by the closest vote of yesterday's Colombia debate
– 51 to 47.

Staff writer Eric Pianin contributed to this report.