Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 10:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200006241445.KAA03542@mattababy.mit.edu>
From: belmonte@mit.edu (Matthew Belmonte)
To: john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov
Subject: your vote on S.2522, the Colombian aid package

Dear Senator Kerry
 
Thank you for your letter of 9 March regarding the Colombian aid package then
under consideration in the Senate.  Your letter responded to my email of
6 February by detailing your concerns over possible misuse of military aid,
lack of assistance for displaced persons, and lack of funding for reducing
domestic demand for cocaine.  These concerns are valid and I wholeheartedly
agree with them.  So I was surprised to read in this past week's Congressional
Record that you voted in favour of legislation containing this aid package
(S.2522) and against amendments that would have at least partially addressed
the concerns that you yourself stated so well.
 
Specifically, you wrote,

     `Finally, while the Administration's package is designed to curb 
      the production of coca in Colombia, it does nothing to address 
      demand in the U.S. without which drug production would not be such a 
      profitable business for drug syndicates.  Indeed, according to the 
      State Department, the U.S. has long been the cocaine syndicate's 
      strongest and most reliable market.  Demand reduction measures such    
      as increasing funding for addiction treatment are necessary to get 
      at the domestic element of the drug problem.' 
 
And yet you voted with the majority for a motion to table the Wellstone 
amendment, effectively killing it.  The Wellstone amendment would have diverted
$225 million from the Colombian military to domestic treatment programs, thus
helping to address not only your concern about demand reduction but also your 
concern about misuse of military aid in counterinsurgency operations.
 
You also voted against the Gorton amendment, which would have reduced funding 
for military assistance to $200 million.  Both of these votes, as well as your
final vote in favour of the bill, seem inconsistent with the observations that
you sent me this past March.  I'd greatly appreciate some clarification of the
logic behind these votes.