U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–425PDF 2007

PROTECTION AND MONEY: U.S. COMPANIES,

THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND VIOLENCE IN COLOMBIA

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION AND LABOR

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 28, 2007

Serial No. 110–74 Serial No. 110–50

(Committee on Foreign Affairs) (Committee on Education and Labor)

Printed for the use of Committees on Foreign Affairs and Education and Labor

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CLIFF STAMMERMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

NATALIE COBURN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

PHAEDRA DUGAN, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ELISA PERRY, Staff Associate

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

JASON STEINBAUM, Subcommittee Staff Director 

ERIC JACOBSTEIN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

MARK WALKER, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ERIN DIAMOND, Staff Associate 
(IV)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR.T1, LOUISIANA

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR.T1, NEW YORK

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

TIMOTHY WALBERG, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 
(V)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey, Chairman

GEORGE MILLER, California 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, 

Ranking Minority Member 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR.T1, LOUISIANA

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY WALBERG, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairman

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

(VII)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Maria McFarland, Principal Specialist on Colombia, Human Rights 

Watch .................................................................................................................... 15

Daniel Kovalik, Esq., Associate General Counsel, United Steelworkers ............ 27

Mr. Edwin Guzman, Former Sergeant, National Army, Republic of Colombia . 29

Mr. Francisco Ramirez, President, Sintraminercol ............................................... 36

The Honorable Otto J. Reich, President, Otto Reich Associates, LLC ................ 48

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chair, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 10

Ms. Maria McFarland: Prepared statement .......................................................... 18

Mr. Edwin Guzman: Prepared statement .............................................................. 32

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: Prepared statement ......................................................... 38

The Honorable Otto J. Reich: Prepared statement ............................................... 50

(1)

PROTECTION AND MONEY: 

U.S. COMPANIES, THEIR EMPLOYEES, 

AND VIOLENCE IN COLOMBIA 

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,

AND OVERSIGHT, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS, AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in 

room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Delahunt 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights, and Oversight) presiding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. This hearing will come to order. 

This is a joint production, if you will, of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I chair the Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on International 

Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight. My friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, to my left is the ranking member of that subcommittee. 

We are doing this in conjunction with the Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere; and I expect we will shortly be joined by the chair of that committee, as well as the ranking 

member. 

And we are working with our friends on the Education and Labor 

Committee. The subcommittees that are represented from that 

committee are the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, 

and Pensions, chaired by our friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, who is sitting to my right, and the Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections. Lynn Woolsey will be here shortly. 

I also want to recognize the presence of the chairman of the full 

Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. Miller. 

This will be the first of a series that we intend to hold regarding 

the operations of American companies in Colombia. In the near future, I will extend an invitation to two of these companies, 

Chiquita International and Drummond Coal, to respond to serious 

accusations about their alleged involvement with foreign terrorist 

organizations that has been widely reported in both the Colombian 

and United States media. 
2

I recently met with the fiscalia federale, Mario Iguaran, who is 

the equivalent of our Attorney General. He enthusiastically agreed 

that we should cooperate in ascertaining the truth of these charges. 

I look forward to that collaboration; and I want to publicly acknowledge the assistance of the Colombia Ambassador to the 

United States, Ambassador Barco, and the Government of Colombian President Uribe in supporting of that effort. I anticipate and 

I expect that our own Justice and State Departments will respond 

similarly. 

I want to acknowledge the assistance that was provided by the 

Department of State to expedite the visa to one of our witnesses, 

Mr. Guzman, today. 

Colombia is a nation that has for decades experienced a level of 

violence unlike any other country in Latin America. The bloodshed 

and Colombia’s long guerilla war was precipitated by a bloody political struggle in the 1950s that was so vicious it came to be characterized as the period of la violencia. 

In the 1980s, the infamous Colombian drug cartels emerged as 

the engine of a new wave of particularly savage violence. In the 

last several years, the distinction between political and criminal 

has blurred as both guerillas and paramilitaries became more deeply involved in the drug trade, with horrific consequences for the Colombian people. 

As Americans, we have a vital national interest and I believe a 

special moral responsibility in addressing the drug-related violence 

in Colombia. Ninety percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the 

heroin sold in the United States comes from Colombia. Millions of 

Americans and their families have suffered from the ravages of 

these illicit drugs. Billions of taxpayer dollars at every level of government have been spent to reduce the flow of those drugs into our 

neighborhoods and communities, I should add, with little to show. 

The economic losses in terms of our gross domestic product is staggering. It is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

But let’s not forget the Colombian people have paid a terrible 

price as well. The tragic reality is that our seemingly insatiable appetite for illicit drugs has fueled the killing in Colombia. We are 

complicit in the devastation of that society. So it is a moral imperative that requires us to help Colombia end that cycle of violence. 

Today’s hearing is an effort to do just that. We must ensure that 

no American business or individual contributes to Colombia’s suffering, as well as our own. 

It should be noted that there has been undeniable progress in 

stemming Colombia’s violence over the past several years. Murders, 

bombings, kidnappings, terrorist attacks all have been significantly 

reduced. 

Let me publicly acknowledge that this is in no small part due to 

the leadership of Uribe and the contributions of many courageous 

Colombians, through peace activities, to policemen, to the courageous investigators of the fiscalia. 

Let me also suggest that this reduction in violence has occurred 

not just because of expanded state presence in all regions of Colombia. What has really changed the landscape in my opinion is the 

Peace and Justice Initiative of the Uribe government. This process 
3

has resulted in the demilitarization of more than 30,000 alleged 

fighters, mostly paramilitary. 

This process is certainly not perfect and has been frequently 

noted by many both here and in Colombia, but it does give hope 

to Colombians who are exhausted by violence and seek reconciliation and a better future. 

Also of particular significance at today’s hearing is that the process requires the paramilitary leaders to confess their crimes. This 

has revealed serious allegations regarding the involvement of companies, including American ones, in funding illegal armed groups. 

The paramilitary spokesman stated recently that many terrorist 

commanders intend to speak publicly about, and I am quoting him, 

‘‘the financing by the banana industry, some coal companies, and 

big national businesses. Those who broke the law must face the 

consequences, just as we are. We will be listening.’’

As I said earlier, two U.S. companies have been repeatedly mentioned in this regard. The first, Chiquita International, has admitted to paying both guerillas and paramilitaries. It sold its Colombia 

operations in 2004, and it paid a $25 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department. 

The significance of the Chiquita case is that, for the first time, 

a company has publicly acknowledged what is understood to be a 

common practice in Colombia: The payment of protection money to 

whatever armed group controls the territory in which the company 

operates. 

The second company is Drummond Coal, which is accused of 

going far beyond simply paying protection money. It has been alleged—and I want to stress that word ‘‘alleged,’’ because in this 

country you are innocent until proven otherwise—that Drummond 

hired paramilitaries to kill three Colombian union leaders who 

worked at its mines and that Drummond actively supported paramilitaries in the area in which it operated. 

It is our responsibility to determine the truthfulness of these accusations. Our efforts in this regard, to the issue of the Colombian 

people and all of Latin America, for that matter, is to show that 

we don’t have one standard for them and another for us. If we are 

what we say we are, a Nation that respects the rule of law, we cannot countenance injustice, no matter where it occurs or who commits it. And if Americans and American investors have played a 

role, even an unwilling one, in Colombia’s violence, we must examine it. 

Now I would return to my friend and colleague and ranking 

member of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights, and Oversight, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher, for any 

statement he may wish to make. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and let 

it be known that I certainly support the chairman’s request to conduct this hearing. I would have preferred to have perhaps a few 

more witnesses on that side of the table, but I am very happy to 

have Ambassador Reich with us today. He is used to having debates with four or five people on their side and only one on yours. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding the hearing, and I appreciate the fairness in which you have treated me and the honesty 
4

in which you have treated the subject since we have been holding 

these hearings together. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses who will make some seriously damaging allegations against American business, and I want 

to say at the outset of this hearing that none of the companies are 

here today to defend themselves. 

Unfortunately, what happens so often—and I have seen this not 

only overseas but in the United States—that companies are advised by their lawyers not to say anything, and thus they don’t say 

anything, and thus those making allegations against them usually 

have a clear field. It does not necessarily mean that because those 

who are speaking are saying one thing that that is necessarily true. 

Today, we will be listening very closely to the witnesses and 

making sure that those things that are being suggested make logical sense and are accurately being portrayed. 

One company that will be discussed in depth is Drummond 

Coalmining, and let us note that Drummond has denied all of the 

allegations that the Steelworkers Union has been making against 

them. Again, they have refused to settle out of court; and because 

there is a trial that will begin in 2 weeks, again, they have decided 

not to go into a public debate. 

Drummond has informed us that they will not discuss the details 

until after the trial. It might have been better for us to wait until 

after the trial to see exactly what witnesses do step forward and 

hear their testimony at the trial, but it is also with the judicial 

branch, so there is no reason the legislative branch has to wait 

when issues do reflect on public policy. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, as I say, we will only hear from 

one side on the specifics today. 

There is a bigger point to be made, and I am very pleased that 

you mentioned the progress in recent years in Colombia to bring 

more stability to that war-ravaged country, where murder and 

mayhem were the order of the day for so many decades. 

Also, I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that your 

analysis that the United States Government is in some way 

complicit because of the actions of our people may be on target, but 

I want to say this. The United States—people in the United States 

are the customers for the drugs that are causing the violence and 

mayhem in Colombia and elsewhere throughout the world, and perhaps our drug policy has not worked. 

I worked with Ronald Reagan in the White House during his 

term of office and I would note that during his term of office drug 

use among young people in the United States dropped by 50 percent because we created a no-tolerance approach, in terms of the 

way you deal with accepting someone on the job, accepting someone 

in school, in terms of a social acceptance for people to use drugs. 

The ‘‘Just Say No’’ strategy worked. 

When that was abandoned and when the moral imperative that 

was laid down by the Reagan administration ceased to become a 

priority, drug use went back up in the United States. And what 

happens when illegal drugs are used is not just that peoples lives 

are being put at stake, but we end up financing criminal elements 

in societies like Colombia. 
5

So now whether or not the use of just this moral imperative, as 

Ronald Reagan, I thought, was very successful at, or whether we 

need to change the fundamentals of our drug policy at home, that 

is not the issue today, but it certainly does impact on what we are 

doing here, and the American people just shouldn’t sit back and 

think that this is happening totally isolated from their own personal behavior. 

As I say, there are many stories that have come out of Colombia 

in these last two decades that are monstrous stories of death and 

murder and brutality, but let us note that that is not necessarily 

just something condemning the Colombian Government. There are 

decent people in Colombia, and I would say on left and right, who 

are struggling to try to bring this horrible situation to an end. 

As you stated in your opening statement, progress has been 

made. But over the decade Colombia has had to make this progress 

in spite of incredible violence by left-wing guerillas, as well as paramilitary groups that can be loosely described as right-wing because they are not left-wing. 

Colombia yields, of course, some of the most fertile field in the 

world. So they have the cocoa and poppy crops there, and that profit, coupled with the American appetite for drugs, has created this 

breeding ground for the terrorism and the mayhem that we are 

talking about. 

There are three terrorist groups at the root of Colombia’s violence. They are the ELN and the FARC on the left, and these grew 

out of Marxist, Communist traditions. And in opposition to these 

guerilla groups came the AUCs, which are commonly referred to as 

paramilitaries; and these groups participate even to this day in 

murders, kidnappings, land grabs, extortion, torture, narcotrafficking and intimidation of all kinds. 

These groups have been in the past, and I am sure to this day, 

have often been negotiated with and compromised by various element within the Columbian society, whether it is the government, 

or whether it is Colombian businessmen, or whether it is American 

investors in Colombia who have sought to protect themselves from 

the violence of these very violent organizations. 

So the situation, although it is improving, as you suggested in 

your remarks, and as clear by the number of deaths and the number of violent activities that have been recorded there, the situation 

still remains a serious challenge. Drugs continue to flow as traffickers adjust to the eradication patterns, which suggest to us that 

perhaps, instead of just eradication, we should also be looking at 

controlling market demand from the United States. 

But Colombia also with this money flowing at this moment we 

have to recognize is being bordered by Venezuela, which is providing safe haven for FARC terrorists. Basically, the government in 

Venezuela seems to try to want to model itself after Castro in some 

ways and try to establish itself as an anti-American leader in Latin 

America and has led that government to lend support to those organizations that are murdering people in Colombia right next door. 

I am sure we will hear today that violence between the terrorist 

groups continue and, yes, in some cases American businessmen are 

caught in the middle and, quite often, American businessmen, I 

would imagine, would have had to pay protection money, protection 
6

money from left-wing guerillas or right-wing guerillas. But when 

you start dealing with these types of elements in a society, bad 

things can happen, and they do happen, and whether or not you 

intended it to be that way or not, because you don’t have the control and the responsibility and the accountability as you have in 

government. 

So, with that said, I am looking forward to hearing the details. 

I know we are going to hear very, very strong details on charges, 

serious charges; and I want to look at them to make sure—unfortunately, the company in question is not here to defend itself—but we 

should look with a very skeptical eye and demanding eye that this 

be done with truth and honesty and accuracy. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend from California; and I can assure him that those companies, along with other companies over 

the months ahead, will be extended an invitation. I can assure you 

this is only the beginning. We will have a series of hearings; and 

I am sure that over time, working together with the fiscalia in Colombia—as I said, in my conversation with him just recently, he 

was enthusiastic about collaborating with the U.S. Congress in 

terms of providing assistance and working together to ascertain the 

truth. 

With that, given his status as chair of the full Committee on 

Education and Labor, and the fact that he is my landlord, I will 

now recognize Mr. Miller of California for any opening remarks he 

may wish to make. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Delahunt. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak, and I will be brief. 

I certainly want to begin by thanking you for all of your work 

in this area, and Chairman Andrews, Chairman Engel, and Chairman Woolsey for their support of this hearing. 

Colombia and the United States have a very long relationship, 

and there is a great deal at stake, and we have pursued that relationship over many years. We want to preserve that relationship. 

But this hearing on the activities that you are investigating raises 

very troubling issues. They are not necessarily new, but some of 

the alleged involvement of American companies is relatively new 

and certainly very troubling. 

This is a very important hearing, because it goes to the future 

of agreements between our two countries and the relationship of 

our two countries. Those future actions turn on the issues that are 

being raised in this hearing and that is the killing of civil society 

in the country of Colombia and with special attention given to the 

targeting of labor organizers, members of labor unions with apparent impunity to date. 

I do want to associate myself with your remarks about the improvements under the leadership of President Uribe, but the policy 

between our countries cannot be based upon personalities. It must 

be based upon the rule of law and the enforcement of that law. 

Pertaining to the subject matter this morning, as noted in the 

testimony of one of our witnesses, when you look at the assassinations of trade unionists and members of trade unions, it is not simply a reflection of Colombia’s armed conflict, but it is linked di-
7

rectly to workers’ exercise of basic rights to organize and bargain 

collectively. 

When you document that with where it is taking place, as Ms. 

McFarland has, you see that this is related to workers expressing 

their desire for better terms and conditions of work and the right 

to organize. 

We are working very hard to protect the right to work and organize in this country and in other countries, and Colombia has to 

join that effort. What we see from the testimony received to date 

is that, flying under the cover essentially of the general violence 

taking place in Colombia, is a targeted campaign against labor organizers, members of labor organizations, and the leaders of those 

organizations. And I want to thank you for calling attention to that 

with this joint hearing, because that is simply unacceptable. 

We all understand the globalization of trade and economic activity, and we understand the concern of American citizens about 

their ability to compete in other countries and what that means. 

But in far too many countries when people decide that they want 

to join a union or they want to strike for better wages or better 

conditions, the first thing that happens is the military shows up at 

the factory gate or at the gate of the farm to put down that kind 

of activity. That is completely unacceptable. 

The testimony today suggests that the only thing that the paramilitaries, the guerillas, the military and the government have in 

common is that for some period of time it was okay to target labor 

leaders, members and organizers. Hopefully, that is beginning to 

change, as you pointed out in your remarks, and by the actions of 

President Uribe. But there is a long way for Colombia to go to convince Members of this Congress that this is no longer a policy of 

impunity and that the rule of law will be enforced, the prosecutions 

will be pursued. 

I do not minimize the difficulty of doing that in this country with 

the violence that has taken place. It takes a great deal of courage, 

and it is a fundamental decision to get involved in this effort to 

prosecute the law. But we need to have people do that, and we 

need to support them, and I think some of the changes you engineered in the appropriations bill will be helpful to that end. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Now let me turn to the ranking member on the Subcommittee of 

the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, it is nice to see my good friend from Massachusetts this morning. I didn’t know you got up this early. 

Let me start off by saying that crimes against union members or 

anybody in an ally’s country is something we should look at very 

closely, and we should do what is necessary to stop those if it is 

within our power to do so. 

But I would like to start off by saying I understand there is two 

cases that we will be talking about today. One was a Chiquita Banana case. That was settled. The company acknowledged past payments to FARC, and they paid a price for that. 

The Drummond Coal case, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is 

still pending before U.S. District Judge Karen Bowdre. And on the 

other issue there was a denial of liability on the other issues, and 
8

a court decided in that case. So this case is pending before a Federal judge. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing, and I hope we have further 

hearings, like you said, but I hope we don’t run to judgment before 

the judge has a chance to decide on this case. 

Let me just talk a little bit about what is going on in Colombia. 

I know there is violence down there. I know there are a lot of terrible things that has happened. President Uribe came up here, and 

I thought he was treated shabbily by the Members of Congress. I 

didn’t think it was right for the leader of a country, even if we have 

differences with him, to be beating him half to death, verbally. It 

was out of character for the Congress of the United States, regardless of whether or not we agree with the leader. 

Let’s talk about what has really been going on. Since 2002, terrorist attacks are down by 61 percent; assassinations of labor leaders, which is a terrible thing, is down by 75 percent; journalists is 

down by 73 percent; ex-mayors is down by 58 percent; displaced 

families is down by 68 percent as of 2006; massacre victims is 

down by 72 percent; kidnappings are down by 76 percent; and common homicide is down by 40 percent. 

Now that is not perfect. That is not perfect, and further changes 

need to be made, and the leadership needs to continue to address 

these issues. But I think, as an ally of the United States, President 

Uribe has been diligent in trying to deal with problems that we 

have raised in the past, Mr. Chairman, regarding illegal activity 

and murders and homicides down in Colombia. 

Deaths to union members, which I think is terrible—I was a 

union member at one time. I want to tell you that. So I am very 

concerned. Deaths in 1996 were up to 221, then it went down to 

51, then in 2005 deaths were—excuse me, 2002—2001–2002, the 

deaths through violence was 205; and since 2002 that has gone 

down to, I think, 40 to 60. 

So improvements have been made, and while we try to get to the 

bottom of these problems and try to help Colombia find solutions 

to these problems, which I think we should be doing, I hope the 

members of the committee and Congress will realize that President 

Uribe has worked very diligently to solve a lot of these problems, 

and the numbers speak for themselves. 

So I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we conduct these hearings that we 

will bear in mind that Colombia is an ally of ours in the war 

against drugs. Colombia has been working hard to solve these 

problems, and we should continue to work on these issues, but, at 

the same time, we should give credit where credit is due. Because 

this is an ally that is fighting the war against drugs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank Mr. Burton. 

I would simply note he made reference to beating up on President Uribe. I hope that he was able to hear my own opening remarks relative to Mr. Uribe. I would note for the record that I participated, along with Chairman Miller and others, in a meeting 

with the President, with the Speaker of the House, that I thought 

was very productive, that was cordial. So I think I have to just note 

that for the record. 

I yield to the gentleman. 
9

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t picking on 

or attacking any individual Congressman. I know you very well. 

You are a friend of mine, and you have always been fair, and I believe Mr. Miller has always been fair. But there were other Members of Congress that really showed discourtesy—and that is a mild 

term—to President Uribe when I was in these meetings, and I 

think—and I still think that that is not the way——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, I just want to note for the 

record that we have worked with the Uribe government, we have 

worked with the Pastrana government, that the current Vice President of Colombia, Mr. Santos, actually stayed with me personally 

when the FARC put out a contract on his life. 

So when it comes to Colombia, I take exception to any suggestion 

that myself or other Members of Congress, at least that I am aware 

of, are not working to benefit both the people of Colombia, as well 

as the American people. 

With that, I yield to Mr. Andrews, the chair of one of those subcommittees of the Education and Labor Committee. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this hearing. I appreciate the chance to participate with your distinguished committee. 

I would also like to thank the chairman for beginning our proceedings this morning on two notes of fairness. One was his very 

justified recognition of our collegiality with President Uribe and his 

government. I think it was a sign of deserved respect. Second, the 

chairman’s statement on several occasions that both sides of this 

story will be heard when the other side wishes to be heard. I think 

the chairman has been very fair in that regard. 

With global opportunity comes global responsibility. There will 

be a significant debate in this Congress in the weeks ahead as to 

what that responsibility means in terms of the relationship between the United States and Colombia. There will be significant 

debate among our colleagues about that. I think before we get to 

that debate, though, that this hearing will establish that there are 

three points of consensus that each Member of Congress must take 

into account. 

The first is that there is an inextricable link between murder 

and violence and union activity in Colombia. It is heartening to 

hear that it is decreasing, but it is disheartening and dismaying to 

hear that it exists. 

In 2006, the Colombian Government itself estimates that 58 people were murdered in some sort of union activity. There are other 

accounts which put that number as high as 72 people murdered. 

The United States is a very different place than Colombia, but let 

us put those statistics in the context of our population. 

Colombia has a population of approximately 44 million people, 

about one-seventh of what the United States has. Imagine how we 

would react if 350 union organizers were murdered, not kept out 

of one-on-one meetings, or subjected to advertising campaigns, but 

murdered as a result of their activity. This is a very significant 

problem, and it needs to be noted for the record, as it will be today. 

Second, there is evidence on the record of at least one major 

United States company participating in the financing of this activity. In March 2007, the Chiquita enterprise, one of its manifesta-
10

tions pleaded guilty in the U.S. Federal Court to one count of engaging in transactions with a terrorist group and paid a $25 million fine. 

The chairman pointed out the difference between allegations and 

conclusions. This is not an allegation. This was a guilty plea in the 

U.S. Federal District Court. 

The extent of this financing is something that this hearing and 

others will investigate. But this is a very serious concern that an 

enterprise in this country is providing at least some of the cash 

that is financing the mayhem that will be the subject of this hearing. 

Third, I believe it is a point of consensus among the members of 

this body that one of the fundamental human rights in any society 

is the right to organize and bargain collectively. We are not a perfect society by any stretch of the imagination. The United States 

should never hold itself out to be. But I do think the standard is 

not perfection. It is a minimum standard of decency. And one of the 

criteria for a minimum standard of decency is that if working people wish to organize and bargain for their own benefits, their own 

pay, their own working conditions, a civilized society permits them 

the right to do so. 

Clearly, we need to evaluate our relationship with Colombia, and 

every other nation, and evaluate ourselves in the context of whether we are providing that very, very important right. 

This hearing will help provide the context for us to decide what 

the next step in bilateral relationships between our country and 

Colombia ought to be. I do not prejudge the answer to that question, but I do think it is very important as the members of this institution make the decisions that we will make in the weeks ahead 

that we understand that we are dealing with a situation where this 

fundamental tentative human right is not only in question but it 

is literally under assault, and I think it is important we hear the 

record of that here today. 

So I thank the chairman for the hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. 

I am going to now recognize Ms. Woolsey since she chairs a subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee, then go to other 

members that are present here. But I am going to ask them if they 

have a desire to make a statement to limit it to under a minute. 

But if you have that particular need, we will give you that minute. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, is now recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to set the example of what we should all be doing. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter the entirety of my opening remarks into the record, and I will instead cut to the chase, and 

hopefully we will be able to hear from our panelists soon. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

This hearing today illustrates that—whether we sit on the Ed & Labor Committee 

or the Foreign Affairs Committee, or in my case on both—what goes on with work-
11

ers in Colombia, especially those employed by U.S. companies, has a huge bearing 

on the decisions we make in Congress. 

After all, since 2000, the U.S. has provided over $5.5 billion in assistance to Colombia—more than any other country in South America—to curb drug trafficking 

and assist the government in eliminating the influence of the Country’s homegrown 

paramilitary and other terrorists groups. 

And we are currently re-negotiating a free trade agreement with Colombia. 

And it is essential that 5 basic labor rights, as outlined in the International Labor 

Organization Declaration, become part of that agreement. 

Against this backdrop is a four-decade long civil war in Colombia, involving leftwing guerillas, right-wing paramilitaries and the government. 

These groups are funded by drug trafficking and extortion. 

And trade unionists in Colombia have found themselves at the center of this battle. 

Due to past ties some union groups have had with left-wing guerillas, trade 

unionists have been targeted by the paramilitary groups, who have murdered them 

at an alarming rate. 

According to the State Department, more tham 4,000 union members have been 

killed in the last 20 years. 

Last year alone, Colombian labor groups report that over 70 unionists were killed. 

And those who are not killed are often threatened, attacked or kidnapped. 

Many of these crimes are never even investigated, and the vast majority have 

gone unsolved. 

One of the recent victims was Carmen Cecilia Santana Romana. 

She was a 28-year old mother of 3 and a national trade union official. 

Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists. 

Which is a shame; because before 1990, Colombia’s trade unions were among the 

strongest in Latin America. 

And while paramilitary groups have been supposedly ‘‘demobilized’’ under a peace 

agreement with the Colombian government in 2004, these groups are still in operation, committing horrendous acts of violence against the workers and citizens of 

Colombia. 

What is equally disturbing is that the influence of these groups reaches high into 

the Colombian government. 

And U.S. companies were also involved with these violent groups. 

Chiquita has admitted that it paid paramilitary groups and paid $1.7 million in 

protection money over a 7-year period. 

It paid a $25 million fine, which some say was too lenient given the seriousness 

of the company’s actions. 

Drummond has also admitting to paying paramilitary groups at its mining operation in Colombia. 

But it is beginning to appear that the involvement of Chiquita, Drummond and 

other companies might have gone much further. 

Today, we will explore the extent of their involvement with these groups, including whether they were complicit in the deaths of their own union employees. 

I think this is going to be a very tough hearing, and we will hear disturbing evidence of gross violations of human rights. 

But the hearing is necessary for the truth must come out.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I do want to make a couple of quick remarks. 

This hearing today illustrates that whether we sit on the Education and Labor Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee or, 

in my case, on both, what goes on with the workers in Colombia, 

especially those employed by United States companies, has a huge 

bearing on the decisions that we make regarding Colombia. 

Colombia, the most dangerous country in the world for trade 

unionists, which is really such a shame because, before 1990, Colombia’s trade unions were among the strongest in Latin America, 

and while paramilitary groups have been supposedly demobilized 

under a peace agreement with the Colombian Government in 2004, 

these groups are still in operation, committing horrendous acts of 

violence against the workers and citizens of Colombia. 

So I think this is going to be a very tough hearing, and we are 

going to hear some disturbing evidence of gross violations of human 
12

rights. Then it is our responsibility to make decisions based upon 

what we hear today. And we need the truth. It must come out, and 

we need to then go forward in the right directions. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlelady. 

I was unaware, and I apologize to my friend from South Carolina, that he serves as a ranking member on the subcommittee. 

With that, let me recognize Mr. Wilson for comments that he might 

want to make. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you accommodating my being here very much. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and look 

forward to hearing your testimony. I am very grateful to serve on 

the Committee on Education and Labor, as well as the Foreign Affairs Committee. The joint hearing presented today is going to be 

a unique opportunity for us to work together on both committees. 

My relationship with Colombia began when my wife, Roxanne, 

and I joined as volunteers in the Partners of the Americas program, where South Carolina is partnered with southwest Colombia 

to promote cultural and educational exchanges between our citizens. We had the pleasure of welcoming a student, Carlos Baragon, 

into our home as a Colombian exchange student. Carlos quickly became a member of our family, and I indeed consider him our fifth 

son. These experiences proved to be invaluable to my children, and 

I am grateful to Carlos, his family, the people of Cali for their hospitality. 

Americans appreciate Colombia as a valued partner and ally. 

Last year, I visited Colombia and I was impressed by the leadership and courage of President Uribe. Additionally, I am really impressed to see, under Plan Colombia, to see the extraordinary success in the reduction of kidnappings and common homicide. Between 2002 and 2006, kidnappings have been reduced by 76 percent, from 2,885 to 687. Common homicides have been reduced 

from 28,837 to 17,277. This is just an extraordinary achievement 

for a great country. 

I am especially honored to have Ambassador Otto Reich here 

today. Ambassador Reich’s experience with the Department of 

State and as the President’s Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere makes him very knowledgeable on the topics that we explore today. 

With that, I look forward to the hearing. Again, I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here. I am eager to hear your testimony, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

I look to my left and to my right. Is there any member that wishes to make a brief, concise statement? Mr. Mack of Florida. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much, and I will be just very brief. 

I wanted to follow up on some comments that I heard earlier. 

I think it is important for today’s discussion to recognize that 

there is a difference between what is happening in Colombia compared to the United States; and as we go through the discussions 

it is important to look more through those glasses, that lens in Co-
13

lombia, Latin America, South America, than just here in our own 

country. 

When we talk about Latin America and how we can improve 

lives in Latin America, it is important to understand that drugs 

play a big part of the deterioration of societies, not only in Latin 

America but here in our country as well. So whether it is poverty, 

crime, drugs, education, health care, they are all important in making sure that Latin America continues to grow. Supporting those 

countries, our allies in the war on drugs, is extremely important to 

the future of our relationship in Latin America. 

So I look forward to today’s discussion, and I want to thank the 

members of the panel who are here today, and I look forward to 

hearing from you as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a privilege to be here 

in this room. 

I am a new Member of Congress, just got elected last November. 

I am on the Education and Labor Committee—that is why I am 

here—but also on the Armed Services Committee; and I think what 

we do in Armed Services is not unrelated to, obviously, our relationship or bilateral relationship with Colombia. Because we, of 

course, have extended considerable military aid to Colombia over 

the years as well. 

I don’t have a prepared statement, so I just want to make a couple of comments. 

I am not unfamiliar with what is happening in Colombia. Even 

though I have never traveled to Colombia, for 24 years I taught 

international politics at a small college in Iowa, traveled to Latin 

America a lot, principally Brazil and South America, but Central 

American countries as well. So I am pretty familiar with the issues 

that I think we are going to hear about today from both sides, but 

I am looking forward to the testimony very much. 

I, too, am very concerned, obviously, about what has been happening not only with labor leaders in Colombia, but others as well; 

the impunity. Because, as you know, it is ‘‘impunidad’’ in Spanish 

but ‘‘impunidade’’ in Portuguese. That word is a word that many 

people are very familiar with in many parts of Latin America, not 

just in Colombia. 

At the same time, I appreciate the comments that Congressman 

Mack just made also about the importance of drugs. There is no 

doubt that we wouldn’t have nearly the serious problems that we 

have in Colombia if we didn’t have the demand for these drugs in 

the United States as well. I think it is really important that we 

think about that not necessarily in this context of this hearing, but 

I think it is something we need to keep in mind, clearly. 

So I am going to finish with that and try to be as brief as I can. 

I appreciate the fact that you are all here, and I look forward to 

hearing what you have to say about the issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

Seeing no other member that is interested in making an opening, 

let me proceed to introduce our witnesses. 
14

Let me begin with Maria McFarland. She is the Human Rights 

Watch’s principal specialist in Colombia. She is a leading expert on 

Colombia’s paramilitary demobilization process, and she is also an 

author. The book is entitled Smoke and Mirrors. I recommend its 

purchase. 

Next is Dan Kovalik. He is associate general counsel for the 

United Steelworkers. He is counsel for the Colombian plaintiffs in 

the Alien Tort Claims Act against Drummond, Coca-Cola and Occidental Petroleum. 

Mr. Kovalik, the committee understands that you are subject to 

a protective order issued by the U.S. District for the Northern District of Columbia in the case of Noguera v. Drummond Company. Congress and its committees are constitutionally entitled to seek 

any information relating to matters within Congress’s legislative 

oversight and investigative jurisdiction, and witnesses may be compelled to provide that information notwithstanding the existence of 

judicial protective orders that restrict a witness’s ability to speak. 

Nevertheless, the committees at their own discretion wish to be 

sensitive to your obligations under the protective order. Accordingly, purely as a matter of comity between the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government, the committees at this 

time only seek and they encourage you to limit your testimony to 

information that will not cause you to violate the protective order. 

Thank you. 

Edwin Guzman served in the Colombian army for over 8 years 

and achieved the rank of sergeant. He served in La Popa Battalion 

in Colombia from 2000 to 2001. He led three platoons of La Popa 

Battalion which protected Drummond property. During this time, 

he claims he was jointly employed by Drummond and the Colombian armed forces. 

Mr. Guzman is one of the only surviving witnesses against La 

Popa’s former commanding officer, Colonel Meija. Meija was dismissed from the Colombian armed services earlier this year largely 

on Mr. Guzman’s testimony of the serious human rights abuses, 

extrajudicial killings and collaboration with the AUC, a designated 

terrorist organization, by our own Government. 

After serving in the Colombian military, Edwin Guzman says he 

was forcibly recruited into the AUC under threat of death and 

served as a conduit for the top commanders of the AUC’s Northern 

Block. 

Francisco Ramirez is a Colombian lawyer, unionist and human 

rights activist. He is president of Sintraminercol, the Colombian 

mine workers union, and the Human Rights Secretary of 

Funtraenergetica—I butchered that, I am sure—the Colombia Federation of Energy Sector Unions. His union is taking a leading role 

in the struggle against the privatization of Colombia’s mineral resources, in exposing the abuses of multinational corporations in the 

mining and energy sector, and pressing for legislative reform to return some of the profits of the mining sector to the country. The 

union has been active in the defense of the rights of the indigenous 

and Afro-Colombian people displaced by mining and energy products and in environmental and labor issues. 

He also is an author. His book, The Profits of Extermination, was 

published in 2005. 
15

Otto Reich is a former senior official in the administration of 

Presidents Reagan and Bush. He has been Assistant Secretary of 

State for the Western Hemisphere, Ambassador to Venezuela, Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the President’s Special Envoy for the Western Hemisphere. Since leaving the White House in 2004, he has headed his 

own international consulting firm, Otto Reich Associates, based 

here in Washington. 

I would ask the witnesses that you please keep your oral statements short so that we can proceed to questions and have a lively 

discussion. 

Let me begin with Ms. McFarland. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MARIA McFARLAND, PRINCIPAL 

SPECIALIST ON COLOMBIA, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I 

am honored to appear before you today and thank you for your invitation to address the human rights situation and the situation of 

trade unionists in Colombia. I will summarize my written testimony which I have submitted for the record. 

Human Rights Watch has monitored Colombia’s human rights 

situation for nearly two decades. We have covered abuses by government forces, by paramilitary groups, as well as by FARC guerillas who engage in systematic and horrific atrocities, including 

the use of child soldiers and anti-personnel mines, an issue on 

which we are going to release a report very soon. 

I would like to take this opportunity to express our strongest condemnation of the FARC’s practice of hostage-taking. We just received news this morning that 11 members of the Valle del Cauca 

congressional assembly who were being held hostage by the FARC 

were killed in recent weeks. While we don’t know the exact circumstances of the deaths, the FARC is responsible for engaging in 

this brutal practice which violates the laws of war. 

Returning to the issue at hand, Colombia has the highest rate of 

violence against trade unionists in the world. Colombian labor 

rights groups report that there have been 2,515 killings of trade 

unionists within the last 21 years. While guerillas and the military 

do at times kill trade unionists, the majority of the killings are 

committed by paramilitaries who have deliberately targeted unions. 

Usually, the killings have occurred when workers exercise their 

rights to organize or to bargain collectively. Paramilitary Leader 

Carlos Castano once claimed that his group kills trade unionists 

because the unions, in his words, ‘‘keep people from working.’’

The number of yearly killings has dropped since 2001, but the 

situation remains critical. More than 400 killings have occurred 

during the administration of President Uribe. The highly respected 

National Labor School reports that 72 trade unionists were killed 

in Colombia last year alone. The recent drop in killings probably 

reflects a variety of factors, including the retreat of the FARC from 

some regions where they were committing abuses. 

But, more importantly, it probably also reflects a shift in paramilitary tactics. In the 1990s, paramilitaries were actively expanding, taking over control of many regions of the country and engaging in frequent massacres and killings as they took over new terri-
16

tory. But, starting around 2000—and paramilitary commanders 

confirm this in conversations with me—they began consolidating 

their control over many regions. As a result, massacres started to 

decline as paramilitaries could now just enforce their control 

through selective killings. And, in fact, I would note that, while 

overall homicides have dropped in Colombia, the number of selective killings attributed to paramilitaries has remained unchanged 

since 1996. It is 800 to 900 a year. 

In the case of trade unionists, with the shift in tactics, according 

to the National Labor School, while paramilitaries still kill unionists directly, they also now resort much more frequently than in 

the past to threats and attacks on trade unionists families, which 

do not get recorded in official statistics. 

A key reason why trade unionists are killed in such high numbers in Colombia is that the perpetrators are almost never caught 

or punished. The impunity rate is over 98 percent. 

Another factor is the improper stigmatization of unions as linked 

to guerillas. Unfortunately, government officials have at times reinforced this stigma. For example, just last month, President Uribe 

stated that one of the trade unionists who has been killed this year 

was killed because he was, in President Uribe’s words, ‘‘a terrorist.’’

Another serious cause for concern is the mounting evidence of 

paramilitaries’ political influence. Because of this evidence and 

independent investigations in recent months, the Supreme Court 

has ordered the arrest of 14 Colombian congressmen, most of them 

members of President Uribe’s coalition, for collaborating with paramilitaries. 

Another case involves Jorge Noguera, the former national intelligence director, who allegedly provided paramilitaries with the 

names of trade unionists, some of whom were later killed. The allegations against him are serious enough that the United States has 

revoked his visa. Unfortunately, President Uribe has persistently 

defended him, meeting several times with Noguera’s lawyer between February and March. We have documentation showing this. 

In recent months, numerous troubling allegations and information have also been made public linking the corporations Chiquita 

Brands and Drummond Coal as well as some other Colombian and 

international businesses to paramilitary groups. Unfortunately, instead of ensuring full investigations and full accountability for paramilitaries’ accomplices, President Uribe recently announced a proposal to release from prison all politicians as well as any other person or business who may be convicted of colluding with paramilitaries. This is very serious. 

Meanwhile, the Colombian Government repeatedly claims paramilitary groups no longer exist thanks to its demobilization program, but, in fact, paramilitaries have been able to keep much of 

their power and wealth intact while getting what they most want, 

which is protection from extradition to the United States for drug 

trafficking. Some of these paramilitary leaders who are major drug 

lords are temporarily in prison, but the government has allowed 

them to use unmonitored cell phones, despite credible evidence paramilitaries are using those phones to continue engaging in paramilitary activity. 
17

At this critical juncture, the United States should send Colombia 

a clear message. If Colombia is serious about protecting trade 

unionists’ rights, it must produce concrete and verifiable results in 

reducing impunity and in dismantling paramilitary groups. The Colombia Attorney General recently established a special group of 

prosecutors charged with investigating the killings of trade unionists. This is a positive first step. However, Congress should insist 

that Colombia show results in these cases through a substantial 

number of well-grounded convictions. 

It is also crucial that the Colombian Government ensure thorough investigations and full accountability for paramilitaries’ accomplices, including politicians and financial backers, and that it 

abandon its proposal to release these individuals from prison. 

The government should also actively identify and confiscate paramilitaries’ illegally acquired assets, it should restrict imprisoned 

paramilitary commanders’ communications, and it should effectively sanction, including through extradition to the United States, 

those commanders who continue committing crimes. 

These are just a few of the most basic steps necessary to ensure 

that paramilitary groups which for so long have been able to terrorize Colombia’s workers with impunity are effectively dismantled. 

I want to make clear that we do not oppose Colombia’s Free 

Trade Agreement, per se. However, Congress should refuse to consider ratifying the Free Trade Agreement until Colombia produces 

these results. We, like you, want to help Colombia and its people. 

The best way to do this is to urge Colombia’s Government to address these serious issues. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McFarland follows:]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Next, we go to Mr. Kovalik. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am going to ask you Mr. Kovalik to—the practice in this particular subcommittee has been not to use the gavel, 

but let me encourage you to exercise restraint in terms of your 

opening statement. Five minutes is the customary practice, but we 

will be somewhat flexible. Please make an effort to limit your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL KOVALIK, ESQ., ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, UNITED STEELWORKERS 

Mr. KOVALIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, members of the committees that are here today. 

In his novel, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia 

Marquez gives an account of striking banana workers murdered by 

the military, shipped on railroad cars and forever disappeared. This 

account, while fictional, is based on a true event the massacre of 

banana workers in the town of Cienaga, Colombia, in 1928. That 

massacre was carried out by the Colombian military at the behest 

of the then Boston-based United Fruit Company, now Cincinnatibased Chiquita Banana, which recently pled guilty to making regular monetary payments to the AUC paramilitaries, as well as the 

FARC, from 1997 until to 2004. In the bill of indictment, Chiquita 

was also indicted for running 3,000 guns to these same paramilitaries. 

As Mario Iguaran, who you just mentioned this morning, the current Attorney General of Colombia has publicly stated, he believes 

that, contrary to the claims of such companies as Chiquita that 

they were paying protection monies to the AUC, such companies in 

fact were knowingly paying for, in his words, ‘‘blood.’’

As he goes on, this was not payment of extortion money. It was 

support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder. Further, Iguaran stated, ‘‘This was a criminal relationship. 

Money and arms and, in exchange, the bloody pacification of the 

banana region of Uraba.’’

Indeed, Chiquita, and now it has come out quite possibly Dole 

and DelMonte, who are unindicted, but now it has been claimed 

they made the same tax payments to the paramilitaries, got what 

Mr. Iguaran said they paid for, with over 4,000 people in Uraba, 

mostly civilian, being murdered by the AUC between 1997 to 2004, 

the period in which Chiquita admits to having paid this terrorist 

organization. 

The Christian Science Monitor explains that during the time 

Chiquita was paying the paramilitaries, thousands of people across 

Colombia, across Uruba, died at the hands of the right-wing militias we expanded from the region of Uraba. That lead to thousands 

of deaths elsewhere. 

I think it is importantly to point out that, sadly, even after a 

board member of Chiquita reported its illegal payments to the Justice Department on April 24, 2003, the Justice Department permitted 30 more payments, totaling $300,000, to the AUC to be 

made until the payments finally ceased on February 4, 2004. Who 

knows how many more murders such payments helped to finance? 
28

I think it is important to note that, while Chiquita is to pay $25 

million for paying for these killings, they are allowed to pay over 

5 years. So Chiquita, a major multinational, their penalty is to get 

a payment plan to pay their criminal sanction. 

Meanwhile, June 25, 2003, four congressional representatives, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, and others who sit here today, 

sent a letter to the Justice Department asking to investigate other 

companies, including Drummond Company, for their support in the 

same AUC paramilitaries. I underside that, aside from a cursory 

acknowledgment of this letter, the Justice Department provided no 

effective response to this request. 

This does bring me to the case of Drummond, which, Mr. Chairman, I will be cautious in addressing because of the protective 

order. 

I was in Colombia on March 12, 2001, meeting with members of 

various mining unions. When I got to their CUT offices the next 

day—that’s their AFL–CIO—we discovered the night we were 

meeting with mining workers that two of their brothers, Valmore 

Locarno and Victor Orcasita, were pulled off a Drummond Company bus taking them home from work. Only that bus was stopped 

by paramilitaries who boarded the bus, asked for those workers by 

name: Valmore Locarno and Victor Orcasita. They pulled them 

both off the bus, murdered Valmore on the spot, took Victor away, 

tortured him and assassinated him. 

Shortly thereafter, a new employee took the unenviable position 

of taking over as union president. He publicly stated in August 

2001 that he believed someone at Drummond had tipped off the 

paramilitaries on which bus they were arriving that night. Meanwhile, this individual, Gustavo Soler, the new president, continued 

to ask for the same accommodation from Drummond that the others had received or the others had asked for and that was to be 

able to stay overnight in the mines so they didn’t have to travel 

at night on these dangerous paramilitary roads. As the first two 

workers, Valmore and Victor, were denied that request, so was he. 

Shortly after he opined publicly that he thought someone at 

Drummond had tipped off the paramilitaries which led to the killing of Valmore and Victor, he was taken off the bus on the way 

home and murdered on the way home by paramilitaries. 

Because the steelworkers had a delegation in Colombia at the 

time of these killings and I personally was on that delegation, we 

have taken this up as a cause. We believe in this case and are very 

concerned about it. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am going to ask you to wrap up. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Okay, I am going to finish up. 

You will hear from others in more detail about the case, and I 

will be glad to address any questions you have about it. 

But I do want to say, in the end, Mr. Iguaran again, when he 

was referring to Chiquita and Drummond, who he is investigating 

for their paramilitary ties, Mr. Iguaran said, ‘‘We have to now start 

talking about the phenomenon of para-businesses in Colombia.’’ 

That is what these businesses today are looking into. I applaud you 

for that and want to assist in any way I can in that regard. 

Can I say one last thing, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Quickly. 
29

Mr. KOVALIK [continuing]. Because this is important. 

I met with Mr. Andres Penate when he was here about a month 

ago when he was at the Colombian Embassy, who I found to be a 

very nice guy. He told me and I know from the Colombian press 

that he told a number of Members of Congress, including Charles 

Rangel, who is key to the question of FTA, that the DAS did an 

investigation of this claim, that the DAS—who the United States 

has paid to protect trade unionists—that the DAS passed a list of 

the trade unionists to the paramilitaries to kill, and he said the 

DAS concluded there was never such a list and that it had never 

been passed. 

I submitted to these committees a copy of the March 30, 2007, 

report from the fiscalia from Mr. Iguaran’s office which concludes 

to the contrary. I just want to read into the record indeed what 

they conclude. 

They mention of the list of union leaders that came out of the 

DAS and was given to the other defense forces, the paramilitaries, 

according to Raphael Garcia’s testimony, we should point out that 

that information is correct due to the fact that in the analysis carried out on the computer with the alias Don Antonio a file was 

found entitled ‘‘Friend Information DAS’’ in which were stored the 

names of subversive collaborators and union leaders. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Kovalik. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Can I withdraw my written testimony and substitute it for my oral testimony? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are now going to go to Mr. Guzman, who has 

with him a translator. I introduced Mr. Guzman as a former member of the Colombian military, as well as a former member of the 

AUC, the umbrella group for the paramilitary organization. 

Mr. Guzman, will you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN GUZMAN, FORMER SERGEANT, 

NATIONAL ARMY, REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. Good morning. The reason I am here today is to 

publicly denounce the connections that exist between paramilitaries, the Drummond Company, the army and politicians. 

When I was a commander in the army at Drummond, there were 

paramilitaries who mobilized themselves in Drummond vehicles 

and received food from Drummond, and I have already on prior occasions provided proof of this. 

Army members from other battalions outside of mine conducted 

operations within the Drummond installations, and on one of these 

occasions they captured 14 paramilitary members who were working as security officers for Drummond. 

When I was in the army we denounced the Colonel that you see 

here in this article. This Colonel provided uniforms and arms to 

paramilitaries who killed civilians, and he said that these people 

were subversives. There are photos that show what he did. 

The other two people who were going to also give the same testimony that I am giving about this man were killed. 
30

I was charged with arms trafficking, and after I served my sentence I was absolved of all these charges, and here is the decision 

that shows that. 

I wrote a book that includes some of the things that I denounced 

before the fiscalia. The location of one of the mass graves created 

by one of these paramilitary officers——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Guzman, what we will do is take all of the 

written materials that you have in your possession and want to 

bring to the attention of the committee and submit them for the 

record so that it will be unnecessary for you to describe them. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. It is just that sometimes we say a lot of things and 

people don’t believe us. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We will review all of those records. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. In Colombia, as everybody knows, the paramilitaries turn themselves in in order to be able to legalize their assets, 

but things continue to happen. Most of the commanders left. At 

least half of their arms are buried in boxes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Guzman, what we are interested in is information you have relative to your experiences with Drummond Coal 

Company. If you could focus your remarks on that particular issue. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. On the news, we heard Drummond saying that 

they had no connections with paramilitaries. I can tell you 80 percent of the population of the province of Cesar knew that Drummond did have connections with paramilitaries. Anyone in Cesar 

can tell you that that is true. But they won’t say that publicly because they are afraid they will be assassinated and their families 

will be killed as well. 

Drummond said it would pull out of Colombia because it couldn’t 

continue doing business with the tax from the guerillas, and that 

is when it decided to seek the services of the paramilitaries so that 

they could watch over and provide the protection for the railroad 

line. Because the army wasn’t able to provide the protection that 

they needed in the coal area. 

A paramilitary known as Tordemayo was captured, but he was 

released because he paid a very large amount of money and his 

bodyguards were the only ones left in prison. 

Drummond is not the only company paying for the services of the 

paramilitaries. There are many other companies that are paying 

for these services. 

When we are trained by the army we are told that we have to 

attack the leftist activists in any way we can, whether legally or 

illegally; and they teach us that unions that have leftist tendencies 

are guerilla groups and we have to attack them by legal or illegal 

means. 

I hope that the Members of Congress will investigate these 

things further, because anytime that we bring up these issues in 

Colombia they try to erase our testimony in any way they can. The 

way that I was able to come here to give this testimony finally before you all was very difficult and very shocking path. 

I don’t have evidence of how Drummond gave money to the paramilitaries, but I can say that when I entered the AUC I saw vehi-
31

cles provided by Drummond that were given to the paramilitaries 

so that they would take care of the Drummond property. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am going to ask you to wrap up your testimony, 

Mr. Guzman. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. I just want to mention Luis Carlos Rodriguez, who 

was a retired colonel who was in charge of facilitating these roles 

between the paramilitaries and the militaries in the Drummond 

area. 

I think you already have copies of all the documents, so I don’t 

want to be too lengthy in my testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guzman follows:]
32
33
34
35
36

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Guzman. 

Mr. Ramirez. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, PRESIDENT, 

SINTRAMINERCOL 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Thank you for inviting us to this hearing today. 

We are convinced that the multinational companies that go to 

Colombia have to have economic guarantees and security guarantees, but this shouldn’t translate into corruption and violence. 

It is a common practice in Colombia for the state and the multinational companies to kill union leaders to get higher profits. The 

multinational companies in Colombia are committing illegal practices from the moment they arrive. 

For example, according to proof and testimony that we have on 

file, the following companies have these practices: The Drummond 

Company is accused of making direct payments to the paramilitaries. It is also accused of giving materials and economic support 

such as gas, cars, food and motorcycles to the paramilitaries so that 

they will take care of their property. 

The proof that we have shows that Drummond is directly responsible for the murders of three union leaders and for massacres in 

nearby villages committed by paramilitaries who are paid by 

Drummond. The money that Drummond paid to these paramilitaries makes them pressure the local population to vote for politicians 

that will support favorable policies and support the paramilitaries. 

These elected members of Congress introduced changes into laws 

such as the mining code and the oral code that favor these multinational companies. For example, Alvaro Arajo was a member of 

Congress elected partly due to pressure to paramilitaries; and he 

introduced a law lowering taxes for mining companies, including 

Drummond. 

Similar changes have been made to the labor code, where reforms have been made that makes conditions more dangerous for 

workers. 

Chiquita, which Dan Kovalik also mentioned, is accused of committing these same practices and also being involved with arms 

trafficking. And Chiquita and Drummond are being investigated by 

the DEA because of links with narcotrafficking, because the paramilitaries are apparently allowed to export cocaine as a form of 

payment for taking care of the railroad. 

Coca-Cola has been accused of using paramilitaries to kill eight 

Colombian union leaders. Occidental Petroleum Company ordered 

the bombing of a town called Santo Domingo Arauca, where 18 people were killed. Eight of them were children. And the same battalion, which is financed by your tax money, killed three union 

leaders. 

This company uses mercenaries to provide security. It is constantly violating the human rights of its workers. This battalion, 

which operates with your tax money, cooperates with paramilitaries in the Arauca region. Ninety-eight million dollars from Colombia went to a battalion that exclusively looks after the interest of 

Occidental Petroleum Company, and where BP Amoco operates the 

battalion in that area has been accused of murdering union leaders 
37

and of committing massacres of civilians, and in the region where 

ExxonMobil operates the battalions which operate with some of the 

military aid from the United States have killed indigenous leaders. 

I have been a union leader for 16 years, and in that time ten of 

my close friends and fellow union leaders have been murdered. 

There have been seven attempts to kill me, and my union office 

was bombed. In most of these cases, the operations were carried 

out jointly by the police, the military and the paramilitaries. 

The DAS security is supposed to provide protection for the union 

leaders, but that security force gave a list of union leaders, and 

many of those people were later murdered. 

And in contradiction with the statistics given by the Colombia 

Government, in the last 5 years one union leader has been murdered, on average, every 3 days. Twenty years ago, the situation 

was actually better and safer. One union leader was killed every 

5 days. Today, we find one killed every 3 days, where the union affiliation is actually lower. 

Finally, I want to ask that you suspend and control the military 

aid that is sent from the United States to Colombia, because this 

aid is being used to commit genocide against the Colombian union 

movement. 

In the last 20 years, more than 4,000 Colombian union leaders 

have been killed. That means, on average, over the last 20 years 

one union leader has been killed every 5 days. 

And, also, we want to ask that you control the bad practices of 

the multi——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I ask that you wrap up. 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramirez follows:]
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Mr. DELAHUNT. Ambassador Reich. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OTTO J. REICH, PRESIDENT, 

OTTO REICH ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Ambassador REICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee. 

I just realized when you mentioned my various jobs that I had 

for the government that I first testified in this room before Chairman Fascell 25 years ago, and here we are talking about the same 

subjects. But I think progress is being made. 

I accepted this invitation, Mr. Chairman, because the topic of 

this hearing is important to our country and to me personally. 

Moreover, how the U.S. Congress deals with United States-Colombian relations in the next few weeks will have a lasting impact on 

U.S. and regional security and prosperity. 

Colombia is an important country, among other factors because 

of its seldom-recognized strategic value. It is a keystone to South 

America, with gateways to the Andes Mountains, the Amazon 

basin, two oceans and close proximity to the Panama Canal. 

Our enemies recognize that significance. The Marxist guerillas 

who have been fighting for nearly five decades to gain control over 

Colombia are enemies of the United States and of the freedoms we 

value, as are the drug traffickers, paramilitaries, and organized 

crime syndicates which have destabilized that nation. 

A second reason why this hearing is important is because labor 

freedoms are critical to a free society, and free labor is a pillar of 

Colombian democracy. The fascist dictators of the 20th century, 

from Lenin to Hitler to Castro, followed a pattern: To gain absolute 

power, they needed to take over, to command, but not destroy, civil 

institutions. The first two targets were, almost invariably, the 

press and the labor unions. 

To me personally, labor unions are important because my mother 

was a proud member of the Telephone Workers Confederation of 

Cuba, a union which no longer exists. It does not exist because all 

unions in Cuba, as in all Communist countries, were replaced by 

one union controlled by the ruling party in the name of workers 

who no longer have any voice in their affairs. Many Cuban labor 

leaders, including some with whom my mother worked, were executed by Fidel Castro for opposing his version of the workers’ paradise. 

As Congress looks for ways to strengthen labor freedoms in Colombia, it must take particular care not to undermine the very system which has enabled those freedoms to survive and improve. 

There is no question that violence has been a problem in Colombia but not only against labor leaders. 

If I may interject, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the period of la 

violencia. From 1948 to 1952, 300,000 Colombians died. Long before, there were the problems we are discussing here today. We 

need to put this issue in historical and regional perspective. 

When I was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for Western 

Hemisphere Affairs in January 2002, barely 5 years ago, the big 

debate inside the United States Government centered on how long 

the Government of Colombia could survive. Most of the national 

territory was outside of the government’s control, and the govern-
49

ment’s hold on power was so tenuous that it had ceded to the 

FARC guerillas a region the size of Switzerland. 

Tens of thousands of paramilitaries, narcotraffickers and Communist guerillas fought each other and government forces simultaneously. This led educated Colombians to flee their country in 

droves, taking their money with them. The U.S. Embassy in Bogota 

in 2001 faced an 18-month backlog of applications from 180,000 Colombians seeking permanent residence in United States. There 

were daily reports of atrocities committed by all sides. 

While Colombia is far from lasting peace, the situation has improved. The United States revamped intelligence sharing with Colombia and offered it greater economic and military assistance. 

Having built on these changes, the government of President Alvaro 

Uribe now controls all 1,092 of the national municipalities. Rightist 

paramilitaries have surrendered by the tens of thousands; 30,000 

is estimated. The Marxist guerillas have been forced to retreat 

deep into the jungle. The economy is growing at more than 5 percent per year. In the past 5 years, close to 2 million jobs have been 

created. Colombian professionals and managers no longer flee but 

are returning to rebuild their country. Violence against labor has 

declined to the point that the International Labor Organization has 

taken Colombia off its so-called black list of violators of labor 

rights. Colombia had been on the list for 30 years. 

In the past 5 years, terrorist attacks are down by 61 percent. Assassination of labor leaders is down by 75 percent. We heard the 

figures. I won’t repeat them. 

Even one murder is too many, but the downward trend is impressive and encourages us to think that Colombia is on the path to 

eliminating this kind of violence altogether. 

I commend the committee for looking into the violence in Colombia. I hope it will recognize the progress that is being made by our 

two countries working together and give credit to where credit is 

due. This progress is due to closer United States-Colombia cooperation, to the bipartisan support which Plan Columbia illustrates and 

makes possible, and to the courageous leadership of President 

Alvaro Uribe and his team of honest and dedicated civilian officials, 

police and military personnel. 

I hope the committee will look at the numbers, look at the 

progress in prosecutions, in reduction of violence against labor 

leaders. The Government of Colombia should be applauded and rewarded by approving the Free Trade Agreement and expanding aid 

so it can carry out more reforms and create more good jobs. By 

helping pacify the country, Plan Colombia is helping trade members to have more jobs and better working conditions. By restoring 

the power of the state and the rule of law, President Uribe is promoting labor freedoms as well as creating other liberties. Why 

would someone stop that progress by opposing a Free Trade Agreement or Plan Colombia? 

It is commendable that the committee is looking into the issue 

of labor freedom and violence against labor leaders. I look forward 

to similar hearings about violations of labor freedom next door in 

Venezuela, where a government that calls itself socialist is attempting to replace free labor unions with a single government controlled union, and to extinguish labor rights altogether, as in Cuba. 
50

I look forward to United States labor unions and religious and 

human rights organizations clamoring just as loudly for labor freedom in Venezuela and Cuba as they do for Colombia. Unfortunately, too many have been silent in the face of those massive violations of human rights. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Reich follows:]
51
52

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Ambassador. 

We have just been joined by the chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. 

It is my intention to go first to Mr. Andrews for his questioning, 

but, with no objection despite his tardiness, I know he was very 

busy in his other committee, I would defer to Mr. Engel of New 

York, my good friend and a leader in issues implicating Latin 

America, for a concise opening statement. 

Eliot. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to say how delighted I am to be here, I apologize for coming at this hour, but we 

had an energy bill markup in my other committee. 

I am very happy to join you at this hearing on United States corporate malfeasance in Colombia. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing on United States-Colombia relations in April in which we began to explore this issue. 

And I want to thank you, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Chairman, for organizing the oversight hearing for a more in-depth look at the corporate involvement with Colombia paramilitaries. As was discussed 

this morning, Chiquita Brand International recently admitted to 

paying off the AUC, a Colombia paramilitary group on the United 

States terrorist list, and is now paying a $25 million fine to the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Even more egregious than the case 

against Chiquita, United States-owned Drummond Coal Company 

has been accused of serious crimes giving money to a terrorist 

group to kill certain Colombian labor leaders. 

If the allegations against Drummond are true, it would be an extremely serious violation of our laws. In the wake of 9/11, it is 

shocking to me that allegations of payments to terrorist groups 

have not been aggressively investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. 

Justice Department. It seems to me that there are terrorist groups, 

and then there are terrorist groups. I can only imagine the force 

and speed at which the entire prosecutorial force of the U.S. Government would have come down on a company alleged to have assisted al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, and rightfully so. 

But, however, in Colombia, we have very credible allegations of 

a United States company, Drummond Coal, having paid a terrorist 

group to kill three prominent labor leaders in 2001, and I haven’t 

heard a peep from the Justice Department. 

The victims of terrorist attacks are turning over in their graves, 

and leaders of the labor movement of today and years past who 

have fought for rights of workers have demanded justice and so do 

I. It appears that we have only scratched the surface of United 

States corporate malfeasance in Colombia. New revelations of possible criminal behavior, each of which must be judged on its own 

merit, have emerged recently, and I believe the Justice Department 

must carefully investigate each allegation. 

In May, former right-wing paramilitary Salvatore Mancuso testified as part of the peace and justice law proceedings in Colombia 

and listed the names of various United States companies which he 

said collaborated with the AUC, including other U.S. companies. I 

very much hope a full investigation can be done on these serious 

allegations. 
53

Let me say, I am a New Yorker and the memory of September 

11th remains fresh with me. I am shocked by the turn of events 

that have made today’s hearing necessary, but in the memory of all 

the victims of terror, we must pursue this in the name of justice. 

There is no distinction in our law between terrorists in the Middle 

East and Latin America. I will be watching to see that an even 

hand will guard our investigations and prosecutions. I thank you 

for allowing me to make this statement, you, Mr. Andrews, and Ms. 

Woolsey. I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you Chairman Engel. 

With that, let me recognize the gentleman and chair of a subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee for his questions, 

Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I thank each of the 

witnesses for their testimony. I particularly want to say to Mr. 

Guzman and Mr. Ramirez, thank you for the personal risk you 

have taken by testifying before us today. We appreciate it very 

much. 

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here this morning. In your 

statement, you say: Violence against labor in Colombia has declined to the point the International Labor Organization has taken 

Colombia off its so-called black list. When did this happen? 

Ambassador REICH. I received, in preparation for this testimony 

I received a document with a letterhead of the ILO that said—that 

listed the countries that are included, and Colombia was no longer 

on it. And I was told that they had been taken off. When they were 

taken off, I believe, is very recently. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Three questions with the consent of the chair, if 

you could supply us with a copy of that letter, I would appreciate 

it. 

Ambassador REICH. Sure. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We spoke with representatives of the International Labor Organization this morning who tell us that there is 

no such thing as a black list that they keep, and they were unaware of the reference in your testimony. Perhaps there is a disagreement on terminology. 

Ambassador REICH. It was referred to me as a black list, that is 

why I said, ‘‘so-called black list.’’ There is a list of violators, and 

there are other materials that indicate that there is a list the ILO 

keeps of countries. By the way, the United States is on that list. 

So I don’t know how reliable it may be, but it is on ILO letterhead. 

It is a list—a number of allegations, accusations against particular 

countries, and it lists the countries——

Mr. ANDREWS. Your testimony implies the International Labor 

Organization has made a subjective judgment about whether labor 

conditions have improved in Colombia. I am not so sure that’s true. 

My understanding is the list is more of a catalogue of incidents reported, and the ILO offers any judgment as to whether the degree 

of severity being more or less severe. 

Ambassador REICH. I am happy to send you both documents. One 

is the so-called list or documentation, and the other is like a cover 

letter, memorandum. 

[The information referred to is not reprinted here but is available 

in committee records.] 
54

Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask for the record you do that. 

Mr. Kovalik. Did I pronounce your name correctly? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Aside from the case in which you’re presently involved, so outside the scope of your gag order, do you think there 

are sufficient tools under U.S. law for us in either the civil or criminal courts to retard the conduct that is alleged in the suit in which 

you are involved? Do we have sufficient legal tools under American 

law to prevent American companies from subsidizing this kind of 

violence? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Congressman Andrews, first of all, thank you very 

much for having us here. My answer to that would be that we do 

not have adequate laws in that regard. We do have some. As you 

know, we have brought these cases under the Alien Tort Claims 

Act, which does prevent or certainly permits a civil cause of action 

if a company or person presents egregious human rights abuses 

abroad. 

Mr. ANDREWS. What improvements do you think could be made 

in the Alien Tort Claims Act that would strengthen our hand in 

preventing this kind of misconduct? 

Mr. KOVALIK. The problem with the Alien Tort Claims Act is a 

problem that is inherent with all types of tort litigation is that it 

is incredibly costly and takes a long time to complete. We filed this 

lawsuit now 5 years ago; it is just now going to trial. Others have 

sat for almost 10 years. It is not an efficient way to get these companies to stop if they are doing it or to prevent them from engaging 

in this kind of conduct. And it appears that, right now, in terms 

of the other laws, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the 

Justice Department can enforce, it seems to be frankly enforced 

more on the breach. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I should know this, is injunctive relief available 

under that statute, or is it simply monetary damage? 

Mr. KOVALIK. There certainly is. Although I think it is weak, and 

I think we need more. That’s a good question. I think it is fair for 

me to mention the Drummond example. 

Mr. ANDREWS. You can interpret your own gag order. 

Mr. KOVALIK. In that case, for example, we brought claims on behalf of several trade union leaders who were not killed but who 

were being threatened to be killed. The judge said, ‘‘Well, under the 

Alien Tort Claims Act, you can sue for an extrajudicial killing.’’ 

These guys weren’t killed yet, so we thought certainly we can get 

an injunction, ‘‘don’t engage in an extrajudicial killing.’’ She disagreed. So I do think we do need some more affirmative ways to 

go into court and say, ‘‘Don’t engage in that, don’t engage in that, 

don’t torture and engage in a killing.’’

Mr. ANDREWS. I see my time is expired. And I would encourage 

the others members, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that one of the 

things I hope we can explore together is this notion of beefing up 

injunctive relief. If one is willing to assume the facts of these cases 

are true, in situations where it is established that there has been 

subsidizing of this activity by American firms, it would strike me 

that the prospect of a contempt order for continued misconduct that 

would run personally the executives of the company would be far 
55

more effective than a damage remedy that might occur 10 or 15 

years down the road. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that’s a very worthy consideration, and 

I know I for one would be happy to discuss it with you. 

Now let me go to my ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and let me thank Ambassador Reich for trying to put things into perspective here. I 

hope we will all pay attention to the fact that he stated very clearly 

that those of us who are more on this side of the spectrum believe 

that labor union rights—and that this is—the right to organize and 

the right to go on strike is fundamental to all Americans. We believe in that, and let me just note that when I worked in the private sector, I am one of the few non-lawyers here in Congress, I 

was a journalist, and I actually was the major force behind unionizing the shop that I was in. And the boss did everything he could 

to stop us, and he didn’t put a contract out on us, but he made sure 

the union we were trying to organize with wasn’t helpful. And we 

had to go to another union, and that’s another day. But the fact 

is, because those of us may see things in a different perspective or 

demand a certain level of proof before we accept such allegations, 

as we have heard today, does not mean that we in any way sympathize with anyone trying to suppress labor, either in our country 

or in other countries. 

It seems to me that what we have got here is a perception that 

American businessmen who are overseas are playing this very negative role in terms of labor freedom and other freedoms in their 

country. And in some cases, that’s true. We know, in China, today, 

our business community supports a monstrously totalitarian regime that does not permit the type of organization that we are 

talking about today. So it is not beyond businessmen to go overseas 

and support totalitarian regimes who step on the rights of their 

people in a number of ways. 

We also have the possibility of the fact that there are businessmen who are trying to do business in other countries and find that, 

in chaotic situations, they have to pay protection. Frankly, this 

Congressman does not see anything wrong with a businessman 

who, when his life or her life has been threatened by a leftist guerilla movement, would want to protect themselves by hiring someone. 

But the allegations today that these business entities, some business entities anyway, went beyond that. They hired someone, not 

just for protection, but to suppress those people who were trying 

to organize for labor rights within their country. 

I’d love to tell you, all I have heard is allegations today. And I 

was expecting Mr. Guzman to give us evidence. I have not heard 

evidence from him that would in any way back that up. All we 

have is that there is a relationship between an American company 

and a paramilitary. That does not in any way prove that that was 

actually done for anything more than for protection against what 

were threats. I am sure the company will tell us they have had lots 

of threats, and Mr. Reich has indicated that lots of corporate leaders have been kidnapped and brutalized in Latin America. I noted 

that Mr. Kovalik harkened back to an incident in 1928. Certainly, 

I will tell you, that there have been over the years, including since 
56

1928, a lot of things to complain about American corporations doing 

certain things. That’s not what we are talking about today and may 

well not be part of the corporate culture today. But if it is, we need 

to do something about it. And that’s why we are having this hearing, to determine whether or not the corporate culture accepts the 

hiring of thugs overseas to murder and intimidate those who had 

unionized facilities. 

From your testimony, sir, it seemed to me that you were saying 

that the actual issue at hand with the union people who were 

taken off that bus, the issue at hand was that they couldn’t spend 

the night at the mine. Was there a union negotiation going on at 

the moment for higher wages or whatever, because the union was 

recognized at the time, was it not? 

Mr. KOVALIK. That is correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What was the—did you say that was the 

issue? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Well, it was one of the issues in negotiations, and 

it was brought about by the fact that the union leaders found 

Valmore Locarno and Victor Orcasita had been receiving threats 

from the paramilitaries that they were going to be killed. And they 

brought those threats to the attention of Drummond, and they 

feared rightly that one of the ways they may be killed is on the 

roads home at night. There were subcontractors for Drummond 

who were allowed to sleep overnight for the very reason that it is 

dangerous to travel at night. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was this a time when Drummond was in a 

major contract negotiation? Was there something that would indicate why Drummond would—by the way, I have heard no evidence 

in this hearing to back up the notion that Drummond hired those 

people for anything more than protecting themselves against being 

kidnapped—but was there some circumstantial evidence or mayor 

negotiation? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Let me address that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are going to have a second round, and I am 

going to ask you to be very concise in response to the ranking 

member’s——

Mr. KOVALIK. They were in major negotiations, and I do want to 

say, and I do cite again, to be careful of the gag order, there is a 

Miami Herald article which details very well witnesses who talk 

about witnessing meetings where the president of Drummond—the 

president of the mines did make payments to paramilitary representatives of Jorges Calento, who stands indicted, according to 

these witnesses——

Mr. DELAHUNT. We can read that particular——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can I hear the end of statement, he’s making 

an important point, excuse me——

Mr. KOVALIK. Those witnesses say—and again it is catalogued in 

that article very well—that it was stated between Mr. Jimenez and 

the paramilitary representative that the purpose of the money was 

to kill those unionists.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you have that in affidavits? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Yes, we do——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you present those affidavits to this 

committee? 
57

Mr. KOVALIK. Yes——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Without objection. 

The chair now recognizes the chair of the full Committee of Education and Labor, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. McFarland, if I might, earlier in my opening statement, I 

quoted your testimony that suggested there may be two levels of 

violence and two separate systems, that’s my interpretation, taking 

place here. There is a pattern of general violence that has permeated the society over the past many years, and for many reason, 

whether it is drugs, or etiology, or it is land basis, and a lot of 

things that we know that have historically been in the mix, but you 

suggest also there is a concentrated campaign against ISA labor 

members, organizers, officials in Colombia. Would you please elaborate on that? 

Ms. MCFARLAND. Yes, thank you. There is a difference between 

violence against trade unionists and other violence in Colombia. As 

Ambassador Reich describes, Colombia has experienced violence for 

decades, in the 1940s and 1950s; it goes back very far. The violence 

against trade unionists started to increase in the 1980s with the 

appearance of paramilitary groups who directly targeted them. If 

you look at the pattern of violence against trade unionists geographically, it tracks the expansion of paramilitary groups. Specifically about half the killings of trade unionists in Colombia occurred 

in the state of Antioquia, which is where paramilitary groups are 

most active. That’s where the banana growing region is. 

As paramilitary groups expanded to other areas of Colombia, to 

other northern states, the paramilitary violence against trade 

unionists also expanded and dropped in Antioquia. 

In addition, the pattern that we see is that the killings of trade 

unionists have occurred most frequently in areas where you have 

also had a high rate of union activity. Specifically in Antioquia at 

the time when it was the state with the highest rate of killings of 

trade unionists, you also had the highest rate of strikes, so there 

is a connection there. 

If you look more specifically at the cases that have been documented by the National Labor School in Colombia, which is a highly respected organization that keeps a database on all this information, the majority of killings of trade unionists have occurred at a 

time when the trade unionists were organizing, exercising their 

rights to organize and bargain collectively. 

Mr. MILLER. Let me ask you, and my most recent meeting with 

President Uribe and others have testified, and your testimony also 

relates to that, there is a decline in numbers, but if you have a selected campaign against a selected strata of society, in this case, 

people involved with and promoting labor unions, given the level 

of killing it is up to today, you are going to run out of people to 

kill I suspect, because the recruitment of people to stand in the 

shoes of those who were killed before them, I would assume, is 

much more difficult. And the movement, as you suggest, away from 

the outright killing a laborer or killing a member of the family or 

threatening a member of the family or actions against those individuals has—so there has—so there’s been some evolvement here 
58

in this campaign, and it’s a question of whether or not you are running out of targets. If the kinds of actions you’ve seen are taking 

place, I don’t know how easily it is to get people to stand up and 

help organize the workplace. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. There has been a reduction in membership of 

trade unions over the years. At the same time, though, this may 

be a pattern that happens with other sectors as well, for example, 

journalists. You’ve seen in the case of journalists more self-censorship by journalists. This is what has been documented by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, for example, and because 

they are engaging in self-censorship and threats are more effective, 

you don’t need to get to the point where you are killing them. 

Looking at the trade unionists, according to the National Labor 

School, what they are recording in much greater numbers is 

threats and killings of family members, which are obviously much 

more——

Mr. MILLER. It is an effective policy. In the United States last 

year 30,000 workers had their pay and their jobs restored because 

they were illegally fired, or pay was illegally withheld from them 

because they were engaged in legal union organizing activities. The 

National Labor Relations Board restored that. 

So this pattern of intimidation and threat sort of runs through 

the employer community worldwide. I have been involved with it 

in Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile, Cambodia, Laos. This is not an unusual pattern. The violence associated with this here is out of the 

norm, even though the violence takes place in those other countries 

also, and has taken place. 

But my concern is that we get an accurate picture. I mean, I believe that the numbers show some improvement, but I want to 

know whether or not that suggests a lessening of a campaign, and 

violence comes in many forms, not just the killing, but in many 

forms against the labor sector, the society when they are seeking 

to join, promote and organize unions. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. I think it is undeniable that the killings have 

dropped. This is not the first time that has happened. There was 

a similar fluctuation in the 1990s when killings dropped from 275 

in 1996 to only 80 in 1999. Similarly, now you have a drop from 

197 to 72. There are many reasons why that can happen, and it 

could easily go up again. 

What we see as probably one of the main factors is this shift in 

strategy by paramilitary groups who are using other mechanisms 

to intimidate trade unionists. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me now recognize the ranking member on 

the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. Burton of Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I listened 

with great interest to all the testimony, and from this hearing, I 

have not heard any hard evidence that these transactions took 

place. Now you say you have affidavits; I would like to see those, 

my colleague would like to see them as well. 

The government, by putting pressure on the paramilitaries, have 

had 30,000 demobilized and 3,000 I guess have gone bad and gone 

back. Hundreds of paramilitary have been killed by the govern-
59

ment. I didn’t hear much about FARC and ELN today, but they 

have been a major problem down there. Companies have been 

charged. The banana company has paid a fine I think of what, $20-

some million. But the case of Drummond is going on right now, and 

there have been a lot of accusations today, but I haven’t heard any 

proof, and I am sure that Mr. Kovalik, when he goes to the trial, 

that he will be able to present that proof. 

One of you said something about lowering taxes, and that kind 

of got to me because I don’t know anything that is wrong with lowering taxes. I wish we did more of it here. 

You know, Cuba doesn’t have any trade unions, and before you 

finish your testimony, I would like to ask Mr. Kovalik if he likes 

such people as Che Guevara—I have got a picture here, it was allegedly taken in your office with a big poster on the wall of Che, 

so I would like to know how you feel about him. And the reason 

is because Che Guevara and Fidel Castro killed hundreds and hundreds of trade unionists in Cuba when they took over, and if you 

are an admirer of his, I would like to know about it. 

The other thing I would like to know is if Mr. Ramirez has ever 

been to Cuba, has he ever met with people in Cuba; and the same 

thing for Mr. Kovalik. I think it is important to know possibly the 

genesis of your concern about the problems in Central and South 

America, and if you are admirers of Che Guevara or if you have 

been to Cuba and worked with people in that government down 

there, I would like to know why there isn’t a great deal of hue and 

cry about that. Selective judgment is one of the things that really 

bothers me. 

There is no question, in conclusion, and I would like for you to 

respond to my remarks, there is no question that we ought to and 

every country in the world ought to put pressure on paramilitary 

groups and groups like ELN and FARC who have been involved in 

killing people down there. Nobody likes that. I admire my chairman for having this hearing. But I would like to find out what the 

motivation is for some of the people on this panel. And so I would 

like for you to be very straight forward and give me your answer 

on that. 

Let’s see if I have anything else here, Mr. Chairman. One more 

thing, you said you had evidence that there has been financial 

transactions between members of the paramilitary and the Drummond executives, and I would like to know if any of you have ever 

seen or any of the people you know have ever seen money being 

transferred from the Drummond Corporation to the paramilitary 

leaders. And I think your affidavit might shed some light on that, 

and that is why I am interested in looking at it. If you would like 

to respond as well. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Thank you, Mr. Burton. First of all, I guess I will 

address, since you asked that question, the Rafael Garcia declaration, which I think you have a copy of, does indicate that Mr. Garcia did witness cash being passed between the president of the 

mines and a representative of Jorges Calento, who has now been 

indicted for the murders of these three unionists, and that it was 

discussed between Mr. Jimenez and the representative of Jorges 

Calento what that money was for, and accordingly it was——
60

Mr. BURTON. You can respond further. I would like to know if he 

is in prison now, and on what charge was he put in prison, and 

that might shed a little light on his credibility. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Yes, Mr. Burton. He is in jail for his own misdeeds. 

He was the chief of intelligence for the DAS. And, ironically, while 

the U.S. gave money to the DAS to protect trade unions, Mr. Garcia himself and his boss Jorge Noguera had relationships with the 

paramilitaries themselves, and he is in jail for his own misdeeds 

in regards to that. I believe it had something to do with erasing 

the names of drug traffickers from DAS computers. 

Let me say, Mr. Garcia, for whatever he did, has led successfully 

to indictments against, for example, Mr. Noguera, the former head 

of the DAS, who we paid to protect trade unionists, for actually 

working with paramilitaries who are killing trade unionists. Mr. 

Noguera stands on indictment largely on Mr. Garcia’s testimony. 

Let me just say——

Mr. BURTON. I don’t want to interrupt you; we have limited time. 

The rest you can submit to the record. I will read it. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Let me just add, again, as the Miami Herald pointed out, Javier Ernesto Ochoa Quinonez, also in prison for his paramilitary involvement, has also come forward and talked in detail 

about taxes that Drummond paid the paramilitaries. 

Mr. BURTON. You have already gone into that. You don’t need to 

redo it. 

Mr. KOVALIK. So in terms of the question about Che Guevara. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. In Cuba, I might add. 

Mr. KOVALIK. I admire his intent to build a more just society. 

That is not to say that he didn’t have——

Mr. BURTON. He killed trade unionists in Cuba right alongside 

Fidel Castro, and you admire this guy. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Let me also say, again, first of all, I do not condone 

that. I do not condone oppression of trade unions in Cuba; neither 

does the United Steelworkers Union. But let me also say, Mr. Burton, no other country in Latin America or the world has the rate 

of trade union assassinations that Colombia has. That is our main 

partner in Latin America. They are killing trade unionists——

Mr. BURTON. I would like to hear from Mr. Ramirez on the question that I have asked. Have you been to Cuba? Have you participated in any meetings down there, and, if so, I would like to know 

on what they were? 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. RAMIREZ. I have been to Cuba and enjoyed their beautiful 

beaches. I am friends with unionists in Cuba and the United 

States, in Canada and in Europe. I have shown solidarity with 

worker strikes in Canada, and with worker protests in Cuba and 

the United States, and I don’t accept any kind of repression against 

any kind of worker in any part of the world, whether it be in the 

United States, in Cuba, or Canada, or any country in the world. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will have 

a second round. 

Before I go to the chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I should note for the record that I recently had a conversation with President Uribe about the negotiations between the 

ELN and his government, and he noted to me his gratitude to the 
61

Cuban Government for serving as an interlocutor and assisting in 

progress in that regard. 

I would further note for the record that in today’s newspaper it 

was reported that it is anticipated that there will be an agreement 

between the ELN and the Uribe government regarding significant 

progress in terms of ending the participation of the ELN and the 

violence in Colombia. That would be a significant achievement. If 

that is in fact accurate, I would congratulate once more President 

Uribe. He appeared to have the good sense to use as an interlocutor the Cuban Government, who clearly must have had some influence with the ELN. 

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the chairman, and it is my pleasure to work 

with him. As chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee 

of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are going to be looking at 

more of these allegations. 

It appears to me that United States companies working in export-oriented industries in Colombia in certain instances have had 

to pay all sides, the Colombian military, the paramilitaries, and the 

FARC guerillas. There are no angels here. There have been allegations of malfeasance in this regard by FARC on the left and the 

AUC on the right, and, frankly, I condemn all of it. 

If U.S. companies are paying for protection to operate in the 

country and export products, I would like to know. I will make this 

open-ended, or perhaps Mr. Reich can answer this; what did the 

United States and Colombian Governments know about these practices of the United States companies? And did our Government 

take any actions to stop them? 

For instance, we know Drummond had collusion with the AUC, 

and I don’t think the investigation was as rapid as it should have 

been. 

Let me ask Mr. Reich, when you were Assistant Secretary of 

State for the Western Hemisphere, did you know that payments by 

U.S. corporations to these terrorist groups were taking place. There 

is, for instance, with Chiquita, after our laws were passed post9/11, makes it a crime to fund terrorist organizations, payments 

continued for 10 more months with the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Justice until 2004, and the Justice Department didn’t 

do more to stop the payments after finding out about them. 

So I am just totally angry at what seems to be a lack of pursuing 

this by the United States Government and by the Colombian Government. Frankly, I don’t care if it is a left-wing group or rightwing group, I think these payments are horrendous, and we should 

have done more to stop them. 

So maybe I will start with Mr. Reich, and then if anyone else 

cares to comment, I would be grateful. 

Ambassador REICH. Mr. Chairman, during my 3 years in the administration, I saw no evidence to support the allegations that I 

have heard here today. There were many allegations, but I saw no 

evidence. And I read every piece of intelligence that came across 

my desk from every source, and I can’t add anything more to that. 

I agree with you that it would be wrong whether it is left-wing 

or right-wing, and in fact, there are a lot of things that I have 

heard here today that I have heard for the first time, and they are 
62

worth looking into. But I also disagree with the reason for some of 

them. 

For example, Mr. Guzman said that a particular United States 

company with which, by the way, I have had absolutely no dealings, hired paramilitaries for protection because the military was 

unable to provide protection and that the alternative was to pull 

out of Colombia. 

Now pulling out of Colombia, would that have helped the workers that Mr. Ramirez alleges to represent when he is not at the 

beach in Cuba? I think we need to think about what this administration faced, what our Government faced 5 years ago when President Uribe came into office, and that is what I tried to say in my 

testimony. And that was a country that was about to be a failed 

state, and companies were leaving Colombia in droves. Colombians 

were leaving in droves, because there was no security. 

One of the things we did, and Mr. Ramirez, I’m sorry, misrepresented, was to arm new battalions and brigades of Colombian military so they could provide the security for the companies, including 

Occidental Petroleum, because the Cano-Limon pipeline was being 

bombed by the guerillas, by the FARC, not by the paramilitaries 

and not by other people, FARC and the ELN, to the point where 

the spilling of oil from that pipeline alone amounted to two Exxon 

Valdez spills. So even from an environmental standpoint, you have 

to support what we did. I am proud of what we did. We should do 

a lot more. 

One thing, to finish, everything we have heard here today, if it 

is true, is a violation of Colombian law and American law. Some 

of it is violation of American law, depending on whether it took 

place there, or it is a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 

or whatever. 

We have given a lot of money to the Colombian Government to 

enforce the law, and I think that it would be foolish for the United 

States to cut off that assistance now when it is beginning to have 

that kind of an impact. We can differ on the number of people who 

have been killed, but the trend is in the right direction because of 

the aid that this Congress has made available. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just say that I think—and I think Mr. 

Delahunt has said it also—that there are a number of us who believe that Mr. Uribe has tried to do a lot of things that we support. 

However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that if we knew that 

these things were happening, why didn’t we as Americans do more? 

I know you said that you heard a lot of allegations, but it seems 

to me, if there was a U.S. company collaborating with Hezbollah 

or al-Qaeda, we would have moved a lot quicker. I think we should. 

I take, as you know, a hard line against terrorist organizations like 

al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. But I think this seems to me a situation 

where we kind of looked the other way and didn’t move with force. 

I am wondering if anybody else, if I may, Mr. Chairman, would 

like to comment, perhaps anyone with a different view than Mr. 

Reich. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Yes. Thank you very much. First of all, I will address a couple of things. First of all, in terms of the aid to the 18th 

Brigade, which protects Occidental, in August 2004, three trade 

union leaders were killed in Arauca where the 18th Brigade oper-
63

ates. The 18th Brigade killed them. The 18th Brigade claimed they 

were guerillas. In fact, the Attorney General concluded that the 

18th Brigade planted guns on them, claiming that they were killed 

in battle, and that was not true. 

I met personally the head of the 18th Brigade, Colonel Medina, 

who told me up front, when I asked him about the murders of 

these unionists, again, echoing something that Mr. Guzman said, 

that he views and his brigade views trade unionists as guerillas 

who are legitimate military targets. 

So I think that while a lot of aid was going to protect trade 

unionists, to the DAS, which gave its list over to kill trade unionists or to the 18th Brigade, which killed trade unionists, I think we 

have to ask ourselves whether it is going to the right people and 

whether they are doing the right things. I think there should be 

an audit of any moneys that go to the Colombian military or Government. 

The other thing I want to comment on, if I may, Congressman 

Engel, is that Mr. Reich didn’t complete the reasoning that Mr. 

Guzman gave in his written testimony, which is before you, and I 

think should be submitted for the record, and I think is very important about why the paramilitaries were viewed as more effective 

for security by companies. He says they are more effective; he says 

five paramilitaries can do what 15 military guys can do because 

they can kill people they view as insurgents, and their families, 

without any due process. I don’t think that is the kind of effectiveness that we are interested in. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. I really do want to move on. We will 

have a second round. But I hear what all of you are saying, and 

it is going to continue. Let me emphasize that this is the beginning 

of a long journey. There are a number of individuals that this committee intends to depose, to interview, sometimes hopefully in collaboration with the Colombian Government, to ascertain the truth. 

We can all opine, and we can speculate. I just consulted with my 

friend, Mr. Mack, about the need to be particularly careful about 

where the money goes. About a year ago, there was an incident 

where a group of military, Colombian military we have supported 

with our tax dollars actually ambushed and murdered a vetted Colombian police union. 

So do we have problems? I don’t think there is any doubt that 

we have problems. This committee intends to vet it out, and our 

purpose is going to be to examine the role of American companies, 

because that is our responsibility. We do not want American companies to fuel, if you will, the unacceptable level of violence that 

exists in Colombia today. 

As I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that things are 

improving. We want to ensure that that trend continues. With that, 

I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, I would like to yield to Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Real quickly, you don’t have to answer, Mr. Ramirez, but you said you helped unions, trade unionists in Cuba. They 

are controlled by Castro. They cannot strike. If they even breathe 

wrong, he puts them in jail, and you know it. 
64

Mr. MACK. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I think what you 

just said is important, and it should be obvious that with some of 

the allegations that we hear today, if there are U.S. companies participating, they need to pay that price. But it is curious to me that 

today there are some who on one hand want to or will support 

someone like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela but then condemn what 

is happening in Colombia. And there just seems to be something 

missing, how you can have that support for Hugo Chavez and Venezuela but then turn around and have a different set of beliefs for 

Colombia. 

I have a simple question that I would like to ask and that is how 

a panel of people can look at the same information and come up 

with two different conclusions, completely different conclusions. 

And I am going to ask the Ambassador to respond to that. 

Mr. Kovalik, I was going to ask you to respond to it, but, frankly, 

I feel like today you have destroyed your credibility on that. So I 

am going to ask Ms. McFarland to respond to that as well. Thank 

you. 

Ambassador REICH. Thank you, Congressman Mack. I think perhaps one of the things that I would like to think I bring to this 

table is those 25 years of perspective. This discussion reminds me 

so much of the debate in this room and in many other rooms on 

the Hill in the 1980s about our policy toward Central America, toward El Salvador, for example. A lot of the arguments that were 

being made about the Reagan administration policy, which I am 

also very proud—I served President Reagan for almost 8 years—

which resulted in what everybody now recognizes, even the Washington Post, that was one of our biggest critics, as a successful policy in Central America. 

There were human rights violations, unacceptable massive 

human rights violations by both the right and left in Central America, particularly El Salvador. What the administration did was 

work with the elected Government of El Salvador as today we are 

working with the elected Government of Colombia to isolate the 

violent extremes, as we, I believe, are doing, isolating the violent 

extremes in Colombia. The guerillas are being sent into the jungle, 

the paramilitaries being defeated and forced or enticed into surrendering, not to the extent that anybody here would like to see; I 

would like to see zero paramilitaries, zero guerillas. But it is a 

process that began in 1948 with the assassination of a very popular 

Presidential candidate and, as I said earlier, caused 300,000 deaths 

in the next 4 years until a military dictator came in and stopped 

the violence. Do we want a military dictatorship to stop the violence? That leads to additional problems. 

That was one of the things we had to face in Central America. 

I think that if we go back and reread the lessons of the 1980s in 

Central America and realize that the best way to build that political center to guarantee labor rights is not to go to Cuba; it is absolute nonsense to say Che Guevara wanted a just society. I saw Che 

Guevara in person; from about as far as you are, Che Guevara 

would take a pistol and shoot a man in the head. He was a murderer, a cold-blooded murderer. That is not the kind of person we 

want to serve as the model for any system. 
65

But that is the kind of people who are training the ELN to be 

in Colombia. The reason, Mr. Chairman, why the ELN—Cuba has 

influence over the ELN—and President Uribe is forced to go to 

Cuba to ask for Cuban support, is because the ELN is trained, 

armed, supplied and, in many cases, directed by Castro. 

The brother of the former President of Colombia was kidnapped 

and miraculously appears in Havana. And Guevara asked Castro 

for help, and he said, ‘‘I will try to find him for you.’’ He was in 

Havana, kidnapped by the guerillas. 

Castro uses gangster tactics against the elected leaders because 

he knows that they are constrained by the law. And it is the rule 

of law that we have to build up, and that is what saves Central 

America. We have a long way to go in Central America, a long way 

to go in Colombia. I think that is one of the reasons why we look 

at things differently. My model is certainly not Che Guevara. 

Mr. ENGEL [presiding]. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask that both the Ambassador and 

I also would like to have Ms. McFarland have an opportunity to respond, so there is some balance in it. 

Mr. ENGEL. Without objection. 

Mr. Payne, if you would wait a second. I apologize. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. With respect to the Cuba issue, I will just state 

that Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned all the human 

rights abuses that occur in Cuba as well as abuses in Venezuela 

especially. Right now we are preparing a report, a full book about 

violations of freedom of expression and encroachment of the executive on the judiciary and concentration of power in Venezuela. 

To us, human rights abuses are just as serious, no matter who 

commits them. We have been very critical of the FARC, ELN, and 

we are very critical of paramilitary groups. I think we are probably 

all looking at more or less the same facts but some of us in greater 

depth than others. 

For example, I do not have access, personally I have not investigated the Drummond and Chiquita cases; I cannot comments on 

the facts in those cases beyond what is publicly known. 

Where I think we differ is in our explanation of the causes and 

of what is to be done about it. In our case, the question of how the 

Colombian Government has approached paramilitarism is a central 

issue. This demobilization process that has been in place for paramilitary groups in the past few years is not a genuine dismantlement of paramilitary groups. Yes, we have 30,000 individuals who 

went through ceremonies and turned over weapons, and the government has lost track of several thousand of them. We don’t know 

what they are doing; we don’t know what they did before. They 

were never required to give any kind of explanation to the government about what they were doing. 

And you have paramilitary commanders who supposedly demobilized and are sometimes making statements that are useful, thanks 

to a Supreme Court decision that requires them to confess. But 

overall they have been able to maintain their assets. Nobody has 

really moved against all their wealth, even though these are Colombia’s biggest drug lords, and they have access to cell phones 

from prison through which they continue communicating, and we 

still see abuses. 
66

Yes, I agree that there has been a reduction in kidnappings. 

There has been a reduction in homicides. In part, this has to do 

with the fact that the FARC has been pushed out of many regions, 

and that is significant, and Plan Colombia has something to do 

with that. 

It also has something to do with the fact that paramilitaries took 

over control of much of the north of the country, and so they now 

only have to consolidate and maintain that control. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me go to Mr. Payne. Let me turn the chair back to Mr. 

Delahunt. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. This is really a very interesting hearing. I am not so sure I would agree that the Reagan 

years were the greatest. Once again, we see things differently. All 

I remember primarily is the Iran-Contra affair where our Government was doing illegal activities bringing drugs and crack into our 

community, in the black community, where we have seen us never 

recover from that. So if that is a time we should pat ourselves on 

the back about our South America policy, it is disgraceful in my 

opinion. 

I haven’t been to the beaches in Cuba, but I have been to the 

medical schools. And I have traveled to Cuba, and I think that 

there are a lot of things that has to be straightened out there. But 

I also think that there are a number of things that are happening 

that are going in the right direction, especially as relates to education. 

I am also disturbed at the concentration of the power from Chavez in Venezuela. I don’t know what has created this situation. 

However, the fact that the people in Venezuela were given universal education for the first time—they have had oil forever, but 

for the first time, they were able to go to school; the fact that 

health care was being dispensed, I think, like I said, it is according 

to how you look at things and whether the glass is half full or half 

empty. 

I know how strong Chiquita Banana is because they took the 

Clinton administration to the WTO with Mr. Cantor arguing for 

Chiquita that ended the whole banana trade and Dominican oil, 

that now all they have is drug trafficking because the treaties they 

had where they had a preference in selling their bananas had been 

totally eliminated by the powerful Chiquita Banana Company in 

South America. Matter of fact, that was one of the big reasons the 

Caribbean countries did not want to vote for Guatemala in the Security Council, which our Government didn’t realize as they pushed 

them to oppose Venezuela. I think one thing we are lacking is a 

real policy in Latin America. 

Let me just ask quickly to you, two quick questions, Ms. McFarland. I hear about what is happening, one thing, and it is not focusing on that, but the Afro Colombians, they are getting it from the 

FARC. They call the military; they don’t come. They are getting it 

from the guerillas, as I mentioned, and the FARC. Their land is 

being taken to grow these large corporations of banana and other 

things. Can you just comment? President Uribe said things are getting better. Could you comment, please? 
67

Ms. MCFARLAND. Yes. The situation of Afro Colombians is that 

they are a marginalized sector of Colombian society, even though 

they are quite a large population. They have been disproportionately impacted by abuses, including most significantly probably by 

forced displacement by armed groups in the Pacific and Atlantic 

coast, and a major issue for them is the question of land. Many 

Afro Colombians, traditional lands have been taken from them by 

armed groups. In some cases these lands are being reportedly used 

to establish businesses involving African palm, and from everything that I hear, although this is not something that I have investigated recently, but from everything that I hear, the government’s 

proposals on land with respect to Afro Colombians have been usually to legalize land now that has been taken in the past. 

For example, there is a bill pending in the Colombian Congress 

that I think was initially proposed by a senator who is the brother 

of Colombia’s Foreign Minister, and now in prison for his link to 

paramilitaries, his alleged links to paramilitaries. This bill would, 

in 5 years, allow a person who had no title to land gain that title 

without necessarily having to prove that they didn’t get that land 

by force, and therefore, it is a law that might allow legalization of 

land paramilitaries took by force. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Just my last question to Mr. Guzman. In 

Mr. Guzman’s written testimony, you talk about the AUC operating on or around the Drummond property, and in your written 

testimony, while you were in the military in that area, my question 

is, did you attempt to stop AUC activities and if you did, what happened? 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. I tried to conduct an attack by surprise on the paramilitaries, but this effort was not approved by Rodriguez, who I 

mentioned before who was the link between the paramilitaries and 

Drummond. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. I yield back since my time has expired. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT [presiding]. I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, 

Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 

kindness. I hope that you will have a second round so that I may 

pose questions. I am going to leave this as part of my thoughts in 

that I am getting called for another vote. But let me just simply 

acknowledge that we have to find solutions, and I hope that the 

hearing is still going on upon my return to hear from each of you 

about the immediate solution that we could put forward because 

killings aren’t acceptable. Government efforts must be promoted, 

but they must be serious; there must be a strong commitment, and 

we must see relief. I yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a new 

member here but certainly one of the first issues that have confronted us has to do with the Free Trade Agreement. I want to 

really go straight there because it has been said here by many of 

my colleagues that the Congress’s failure to ratify the ColombianU.S. Free Trade Agreement could derail, would derail Colombia’s 
68

road to recovery and thereby make the situation worse for trade 

unionists and all Colombians. 

Can I have a response from folks sitting there about that? 

Ms. MCFARLAND. We have called for Congress to delay consideration of the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia. The reason we 

are doing that is because we think the best way to get Colombia 

to take some necessary, if difficult for various reasons, steps to address human rights abuses and to address specifically paramilitary 

infiltration of the political system—paramilitaries are responsible 

for the majority of trade unionists’ killings—to get Colombia to address these two issues, you need to ask them to show some results 

first before they get the Free Trade Agreement. Pre-conditions 

must be attached to the Free Trade Agreement; side letters will not 

do the trick. 

Ms. CLARKE. Let me just ask, Ms. McFarland, because some of 

what we are hearing is that what we are seeing now with the decrease in deaths of trade unionists is the result of good faith efforts 

on the part of President Uribe. So it is kind of hard to gauge it. 

You are dealing with a lot of new members, particularly, coming 

in, and there are a lot of concerns, how do we necessarily gauge 

what your request is with respect to what progress actually means? 

Ms. MCFARLAND. There are two things to keep in mind: One is 

the impunity rate remains at over 98 percent, and even though 

President Uribe has been in office since 2002, that has not changed 

in any major way. If you want to have a real long-term decrease 

in killings of trade unionists, you need to punish the perpetrators. 

That is not happening yet. 

We would like to see that happen. They have established this 

new entity in the Attorney General’s office that will supposedly investigate these cases, but we have to see results. We have seen so 

many cases in the past of units being established and the Attorney 

Generals’ office investigating things, and then, for one reason or 

another, the cases don’t move forward. 

The other factor is, with respect to paramilitary groups, the government has made concession after concession in the paramilitary 

demobilization process and has yet shown the will to dismantle the 

underlying structures. That means getting at their money, the 

money they use to hire new guys to replace the ones that demobilize, and getting at their backers, figuring out what their political 

networks are, figuring out who backed them financially. That 

means that Colombia should be focusing all its efforts right now on 

supporting the investigations by the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s office into paramilitaries’ links to politicians and 

businesses. It also means the U.S. should, to the extent that U.S. 

corporations are involved, be investigating. 

Unfortunately, President Uribe’s proposal right now is to release 

from prison anybody who is convicted of having these links, and 

that would be a disaster. It would be—would completely undermine 

the rule of law. 

Ambassador REICH. Ma’am, I agree with your colleagues who say 

the Free Trade Agreement and the increased economic cooperation 

and commercial relations with Colombia is one of the things that 

has contributed a very dramatic improvement, and there are a couple of charts that I would direct you to that I didn’t prepare—they 
69

were there this morning—that show that there has been an improvement across the board. 

We have all used a lot of figures here today, and I think it is important to verify those figures. But no one has said that there has 

not been improvement. I think it is dramatic improvement, not 

only in terms of violations of human rights directed against a particular segment of the population, labor leaders, which has been reduced dramatically, but across the board, terrorist acts, homicides, 

common crime. The number of internally displaced persons, people 

in Colombia who have had to flee their homes because of the war, 

all of that has improved over the last 5 years. It is the 5 years of 

President Uribe, and it is the 5 years the United States has contributed a great deal, but also through trade, open trade. The fact 

is that the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia will benefit the 

United States even more than it will Colombia because most of Colombian products already enter the United States duty free 

through other programs we have. 

So withholding the Free Trade Agreement from Colombia is not 

really an economic sanction against Colombia, it is a political statement. I think it is a bad political statement because it weakens the 

very government that has made all these improvements that needs 

the support of the United States and needs more money for administration of justice, for more prosecutions. Almost all of the crimes 

that we have heard here today have been brought to the—the accusations have been made by the Colombian Government prosecutors, 

by the Colombian Government. There are a lot of other allegations, 

and there are trials going on in this country to find out if an American company or others have been involved. 

By the way, I am all for enforcing the law. I mean, I happen to 

agree with Congressman Rohrabacher, that sometimes our companies—and I represent some companies, but I am very careful not 

to represent the wrong companies—that sometimes our companies 

take advantage of very bad labor conditions; for example, in China. 

And I think that that is wrong. 

We are different. We are not like some of the other countries in 

the world that take advantage of the workers. I agree that we 

should expand our trade with Colombia. I think the Free Trade 

Agreement should be ratified. 

By the way, there is a practical reason why it cannot be delayed. 

We have the Andean Trade Preference Act, which was just extended yesterday, extended for 8 months. If the Free Trade Agreement is not ratified in those 8 months, then trade, bilateral trade, 

is going to be disrupted severely. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Kovalik, I am going to cut you off because 

I am informed by the ranking member that he needs to leave soon 

and I want to get to him for his final round of questions. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

appreciate your commitment to getting to the heart of the matter 

and getting to the truth. The Iran-Contra affair had nothing, zero, 

to do with drug importation into this country. The charge that was 

controversial in that was that there was a Presidential Directive 

that prevented any type of arms interaction with Iran, and in order 

to try to save some hostages in Beirut, some questionable judg-
70

ments were made by the President as to exchanging arms for hostages in Beirut. Then the leftover residuals from that transaction 

were given to the Contras. It had zero to do with drugs. But that 

statement feeds into the fantasy that is perpetuated by Hollywood 

that the United States just right under the surface is committing 

all of these monstrous crimes and that we are no better than the 

likes of Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. 

And we are better than Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. 

Let me note that, today, having witnesses who admire Mr. 

Guevara and a supposed union leader who goes to a country which 

represses their right to strike and union rights in that country, a 

union leader that goes there to have his holiday rather than to 

other countries that are free, undermines the credibility of what 

you are trying to have us believe. Let me note, that doesn’t mean 

that if you present us facts that we don’t look at the facts. And I 

do. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt. I don’t think Mr. Kovalik testified that he went to the beaches of Cuba. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Ramirez did. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just saw a quizzical look because it would appear that Mr. Kovalik hasn’t. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Kovalik suggested at one point he was 

someone who admired, at least at one point, Che Guevara. Mr. 

Reich described full well the dictatorship and the murderous activity of Mr. Guevara, even in terms of the labor union movement of 

Cuba. Many of the people who fought Castro early on were trade 

unionists who had been kicked out when Castro came to power because they thought they were going to support a democracy, and 

then Castro turned it into a Communist dictatorship. That is why 

Castro is still in power in Cuba after all of these years, for Pete’s 

sake. 

Now with that said, let’s look at evidence, and because I think 

that you have got some philosophical problems here does not mean 

that when human rights organizations come to us with specific evidence that we should in any way just dismiss the evidence because 

the persons backing up the allegations have questionable philosophical backgrounds. 

Today I didn’t hear anything from Mr. Guzman at all that would 

suggest to me that he is proving the case that American companies 

hired someone specifically to kill labor union organizers. His testimony indicates to me that there was some sort of agreement made 

with American companies that was protection money. 

Now the only evidence suggested and the only crime that I see 

against labor union movements is this affidavit that I have read. 

And I understand that this is an individual—this is the only affidavit that brings it together. 

Mr. KOVALIK. No, there are others as well, which I would like to 

submit. 

[The information referred to is not reprinted here but is available 

in committee records.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Please submit it for the record, and I will be 

happy to go over it. I appreciate that. When we went down to ask 

for the affidavit, this is the one we were given. If this is the best 

one, because this is the one you are presenting, it is presented by 
71

a man in prison, who when he first wrote this affidavit, from what 

I understand, wrote the affidavit and quoted a date in which he 

was having a meeting with a person who proved that he was not 

in the country at that date. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Mr. Congressman, that was proven not to be true 

later, and they don’t even claim that any more, that he was out of 

the country. Just to be very clear. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Then you have just corrected that, and we 

will take a look at that. I am happy that you were here to refute 

that argument. 

Mr. KOVALIK. I appreciate that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note this. So we have this fellow in 

prison. He may or may not be a reliable source. He was involved 

with a drug-connected crime, and he was protecting certain drug 

elements. But today, even at the very—stretching it, we are hearing some testimony that some people working for this American 

company made some sort of agreement with the paramilitaries, and 

again, as far as I am concerned, someone who is hiring someone 

to protect themselves—Chiquita Banana, for example, hired one of 

the left-wing guerilla groups to protect themselves. I mean, that 

was much less hiring them to suppress their labor union movement. 

But is there any evidence that you have that suggests U.S. citizens, U.S. executives were involved in this? Do you have any evidence U.S. executives were involved and not just perhaps the local 

manager of a company worrying about his security, the security of 

his workers, hiring somebody to protect them against outside 

threats? Are U.S. names directly involved? 

Mr. KOVALIK. The answer to that is that, again, in the affidavit 

you see, and, again, as this article that pointed out, there is another witness who corroborates that testimony, involved Augusto 

Jimenez, the president of Drummond operations. As I understand 

it he actually jointly has offices in Colombia and Alabama. In fact, 

he accepted service at the Alabama office. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is he a U.S. citizen? 

Mr. KOVALIK. I really don’t know, but I think he has joint residency. The other point is that Drummond Limited, which operates 

the mines in Colombia, their headquarters is in Jasper, Alabama. 

So we are not just dealing with a mere Colombian subsidiary; we 

are dealing with a company that, if these things are true, is based 

in Jasper, Alabama. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How long did a union exist in that company 

prior to the death of these two union organizers? 

Mr. KOVALIK. Probably Francisco could answer better, but I 

think around I would say 5, 6 years. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 5 or 6 years. This isn’t a case where someone 

is trying to organize a union, and the boss says, we are going to 

get rid of these guys because we don’t have to have a union; this 

is a case where a union has existed for 5 to 6 years, and you are 

suggesting earlier in your testimony that they were in the middle 

of a major negotiation, and this just wasn’t a request to spend the 

night? 

Mr. KOVALIK. It was contract negotiations which were going on 

at that time and which continued after they were dead. Gustafo, 
72

who died later, continued those. Let me say, in Colombia, the most 

dangerous time for trade unionists is during contract negotiations. 

That is a time when people do tend to be assassinated. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is real negotiation. 

Mr. KOVALIK. That is some leverage there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate the chance to ask these questions. Again, I do not take lightly charges that any person trying 

to organize a union or represent workers to a company is brutalized or murdered. That should not be taken lightly. That is what 

happens when people like Che Guevara come to power. That is 

what you can expect will happen when any unions start bucking 

Mr. Chavez in Venezuela. These tough guys come in. 

Now I know there is a left-wing fantasy fed by Hollywood that 

this is what American executives are all about; this is what our 

Government people are all about. And that is a pure fantasy, and 

it deals a lot with people who philosophically hate this country. But 

if, indeed, there is some proof to a charge that would indicate we 

are involved with that type of activity, we need to get to the bottom 

of it and clean it up. Mr. Reich knows that. He was an ambassador. 

He hated Communism, but he was a guy who had strong standards 

about the things we are talking about. That is the type of individual that I have run across in our ambassadorial positions all 

around the world. So if you would like to answer that. 

Mr. KOVALIK. I just wanted to just emphasize again that, again, 

when we go back to Chiquita, I want to make it clear that Mr. 

Iguaran himself, the Attorney General of Colombia, who works for 

President Uribe, he himself doesn’t believe that this was protection 

money. I think it is important. He is seeking the extradition of 

Chiquita officials because he thinks they were paying knowingly for 

people who were going to carry out, in his words, the bloody pacification of Uraba. I think it is important we defer to that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is the prosecutor, and I will say that I 

know that prosecutors make accusations all the time, and if these 

are accurate accusations, and he is proven correct, I am happy to 

hear you telling us about this and happy the chairman called this 

meeting and happy the prosecutor is down there trying to correct 

the situation. 

So I am not discounting the information we have heard today at 

all. I have not heard evidence at this hearing that would—minor 

evidence. I would say, if I was on the jury right now, I would say, 

not guilty, just from what I have heard today. But that is not to 

say that I couldn’t see some of the other affidavits you are presenting and that this prosecutor may well have some information, 

Mr. Chairman, that proves your charges, and I am open-minded in 

looking at that. 

The most important thing is truth, getting to the truth, and, 

quite frankly, over the years, when we have heard people who 

party in Cuba, who like Che Guevara, it undermines our confidence 

that we are being given the truth. Human rights organizations 

struggle—and I have a lot of respect for your organization and for 

Amnesty International, but there are other people who are partisan 

in trying to bring out the truth. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
73

Mr. DELAHUNT. I can assure you, Mr. Rohrabacher, that we will 

pursue the truth. I have no doubt that you will have another occasion to meet Mr. Kovalik and Mr. Guzman. 

Mr. KOVALIK. I am a nice guy when you get to know me. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. In fact, I would hope at our next hearing we 

have the opportunity to have the Attorney General of Colombia, 

Mario Iguaran, present to testify so that you can inquire of him as 

to the quality of the cases that he is prepared to go forward with. 

For the record, let me just read from a Miami Herald story posted on April 17th:

‘‘The details laid out in the document, and the document is the 

prosecution document filed in the Federal district court of Colombia, it does show top Chiquita executives and most board 

members ignored the risks involved and even assumed that 

violation of the law would be civil rather than a criminal matter.’’

I don’t believe that is the opinion of the Attorney General of Colombia, and I am confident, given your search as is mine for the truth, 

and I am sure Mr. Mack will join us in this request, but if there 

is a request from the Attorney General of Colombia to seek the extradition of eight executives from Chiquita Brands International, 

the Ohio banana company, that he will support that request from 

the Uribe government. I yield to the gentleman to listen to his assent. 

Mr. MACK. Well thank you. I believe, like I said earlier, that if 

there are crimes being committed by U.S. businesses, then they 

ought to stand and be judged and they ought to be punished for 

breaking those laws. I have said it, I know what you want me to 

say, but——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, I will give you an opportunity to respond, but I would hope that you would concur with me 

that given what I think is unanimous kudos thrown to the Attorney General of Colombia, there are requests that he makes of our 

Government to secure the presence of American executives. Presumably American citizens in legal proceedings in Colombia ought 

to be supported by this subcommittee. 

That is my very simple question, and I yield to the gentleman 

from Florida. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say again, anyone who 

is found breaking the law whatever the standing is in the United 

States ought to be punished, and I will continue to stand on that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I thank the gentleman. I know that he, and 

I am sure everybody here including my friends from California and 

Indiana, are all concerned about double standards, and we all condemn human rights abuses. I know you condemn the human rights 

abuses in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Mack, I know you condemn the human 

rights abuses in Kazakhstan, I know you condemn the human 

rights abuses in Egypt, I am confident that you condemn the 

human rights abuses in Pakistan. I have no doubt that you and 

others and all of us condemn the human rights abuses in Equatorial Guinea. I have no doubt we condemn, all of us, the human 

rights abuses that exist anywhere on the planet. I have no doubt 
74

that we condemn the human rights abuses that are currently being 

perpetrated in Vietnam, despite the fact that we just signed——

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, do you yield? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield. 

Mr. MACK. And I am sure all of us here condemn the human 

rights abuses in Venezuela as well. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Absolutely and I am glad to know that you concur with me, but the point is when we talk about double standards, 

I find it fascinating that we become very selective. You know when 

I see this wonderful snapshot of our President, President Bush, in 

Vietnam signing a Free Trade Agreement and we all encourage 

free and fair trade, and there behind him is this looming figure of 

Ho Chi Minh, it kind of brings it all together. But I think we can 

all say, whether it is Mr. Kovalik, whether it is me, Mr. Mack or 

Ambassador Reich, we all condemn human rights abuses and particularly when it attacks the weakest and most vulnerable in any 

society. And I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever that the 

history of Colombia, when it is written 100 years from now, will 

focus in on the poor people in Colombia that have been absolutely 

victimized, where the organized labor union during the course of 

time has been suppressed, has been abused, and that is the purpose and that is the effort that this subcommittee is going to make, 

we will get to the truth. We will ask Salvatore Mancuso about the 

veracity of his statement that—and I am looking for it here—according to Mancuso, U.S.-based banana producers Chiquita, Del 

Monte and Dole supposedly paid a percentage of their profits to the 

AUC, they paid us .01 cents on the dollar for every crate that went 

out of the country. Dole is in charge of collecting the money and 

executing the operation. He said all of the companies were aware 

of the payments and put them on the books as contributions to private security concerns while the paramilitaries killed dozens of banana union activists. 

There is a moral imperative and I know my friend agrees with 

me to get to the bottom of this, to peel back, if you will, the skin 

on this onion. It is ugly. And I have defended the Uribe government and President Uribe because he started a process that allowed these statements to become public. There has never, ever in 

my memory in a hearing such as this or ones that will be held in 

the future about the truth and the reality of what occurs on every 

day, not just in Columbia but elsewhere in Latin America. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. I don’t know how I can stop that, Mr. Chairman. I 

agree with everything you said and I agree with Mr. Mack. 

I think this is not a hearing about Cuba or anything else, I 

don’t—I am no fan of——

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield for a moment. I know 

Mr. Mack is aware of this in Cuba. Can we condemn, Ambassador 

Reich, what is happening in Saudi Arabia, too, the denial of religion? 

Ambassador REICH. Sir, I have no problem condemning human 

rights violations anywhere in the world. I join you in that. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate it. I want to make sure we don’t get 

too selective. We all have our favorite little targets and I found it 

very disappointing, for example, that the thug, the despot of 
75

Uzbekistan, was provided military assistance because of the supposed war on terror. Let’s talk about double standards, but let’s be 

very clear that it is not done on a selective basis. 

With that, I yield back to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. The point I was trying to 

make is I have been no fan of Fidel Castro through the years and 

I condemn any dictatorship, right-wing or left-wing. I don’t find one 

better than the other. I condemn it in whatever country there is 

a lack of human rights. I condemn in whatever country trade 

unionists are not allowed to organize or intimidated or assassinated, and there is plenty of proof it has happened both under 

right-wing and left-wing dictatorships. 

But I don’t think that we should get off the topic, and the topic 

here of course is Colombia and what has gone on with Colombia 

and whether the United States Government looked the other way 

because that is something that we can control as the U.S. Congress, that we can appropriately investigate, and that is what I am 

concerned with. I think all of us believe that Mr. Uribe is trying, 

has opened up on a lot of things and is trying to lead the country 

in a good direction, which is why I organized a trip to Colombia 

with my Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and I believe 

that we need to work with Mr. Uribe in partnership. But I don’t 

believe working with him means that we have to whitewash what 

happened or is alleged to have happened, that we need to turn the 

other way because we are working with a government or a leader 

and therefore we are not going to condemn what needs to be condemned when we see that there may have been some abuses, and 

I applaud Mr. Uribe for being open about it and investigating and 

allowing these investigations to go on. 

So I am happy to join with Mr. Delahunt in looking at what is 

alleged to have happened in Colombia. And as I said, whether it 

is the FARC on the left or the AUC on the right, if there are things 

that are wrong our subcommittees ought to investigate them. 

So I think that this has been a very, very good hearing. I told 

Mr. Delahunt—he is coming back—I was going to ask Mr. Mack if 

he has any further comments. I turn it back over to Mr. Delahunt 

and I guess we will adjourn after Mr. Mack makes his comments. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to say that I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Engel. I think that his heart is in 

the right place and he is a caring individual that really does want 

to see positive change in the Western hemisphere and I want to 

thank you for that. 

I would like to also point out that in the idea of kind of selecting 

who we are going to condemn and who we are not going to condemn, I know that my friend Mr. Delahunt also wants to condemn, 

like I said, those human right violations in Venezuela, those 

human right violations in Cuba, and I know we wouldn’t want to 

stand with leaders of countries who continue to either allow or provide for human rights abuses in our own hemisphere. I know he 

would want to stand with me as we challenge Hugo Chavez and 

the human rights violations that he continues to perpetrate on the 

people of Venezuela. 
76

You know, it is sad when a leader of a country wants to see or 

doesn’t want to take on the issue of poverty so he can hand out assistance to try to keep his power. Today’s hearing should be about 

the successes of Plan Colombia and the need for free trade so that 

there are more job opportunities in Latin America, in our hemisphere. That is how you combat drug trade; that is how you combat 

poverty; that is how you provide more education and health care. 

Something that Mr. Payne said earlier I think hit the nail right 

on the head and that is we don’t have a real expanded policy in 

Latin America and we need to do that. These hearings are wonderful because it really starts a dialogue, but we really need to move 

to the next step, Mr. Chairman. We need to move to the next step, 

and that is instead of having hearing, after hearing, after hearing 

of condemning people, maybe it would be a good cause if we actually put together a plan, put together a plan that is going to help 

the people of Latin America fight for and defend themselves and 

provide for themselves. 

There is nothing better than creating policy that is going to allow 

people to be proud of who they are, to allow people to create opportunities for themselves so they have hope, so they have those opportunities. I would hope that in the future hearings that we also 

try to have a more balanced approach of our panel so that we can 

get ideas from all spectrums of thought. 

Mr. Chairman, I do applaud you in taking this forward and putting this hearing together. I do think it is time though that we 

move to the next step and that we go, we sit down, we roll up our 

sleeves, we put together a plan that deals with all of the issues in 

Latin America, not just one country, so that our friends in Latin 

America have a real hope for a better life and have real hope and 

opportunity for themselves. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, gentlemen. And let me state that 

clearly this expression of moving forward with a plan that factors 

in all of the issues that confront Latin America is well received. I 

would point out I have no doubt that that is underway, under the 

leadership of Chairman Engel. 

I note for the record that this subcommittee is a subcommittee 

on oversight and what we attempt to do is to lay out the truths, 

acknowledge our imperfections and learn, because we can only 

learn if we acknowledge our mistakes. 

I would like to just take a moment to address some observations 

to Ms. McFarland. I understand your frustration with the Peace 

and Justice Act and some of the statements that have been made 

by President Uribe. At the same time, it was President Uribe who 

pushed and secured the passage of the Peace and Justice Act. 

I dare say we would not be having this hearing today but for the 

Peace and Justice Act. I think it provides us a window inside the 

dynamic of Colombian society, it will give us a significantly better 

understanding of what that plan that Mr. Mack alludes to ought 

to look like. 

When we see and learn from the paramilitaries themselves, what 

has occurred specifically in terms of the union movement in Colombia, and the purported, or in the case of Chiquita, the acknowledged involvement of American corporations, I think it provides us 
77

with a basis to have the kind of discourse that I heard Mr. Mack 

suggest. 

So it is messy; every peace process is messy. And there is never 

a full measure of justice and decisions about where Colombia and 

how Colombia moves toward peace, and justice is something that 

the Colombians are going to have to answer for themselves. 

I think we have the pieces in place. I think the Attorney General, 

with the support of the Uribe government, is sincere, he is genuine. 

He came here, visited Washington, requested support in the foreign 

appropriations bill that recently passed this House. There is significantly increased funding for the unit that you referred to for the 

constitutional—for the Supreme Court, for a whole array of other 

resources that hopefully will culminate in a society that at least 

has had a shot in terms of some small measure of justice and ending with a different society, one that is free of the kind of violence 

that has ravaged Colombia for far too long. 

Respond, if you wish. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. Yes, we are very pleased to see the increase in 

assistance to the Attorney General’s office and to the court system. 

This is absolutely essential if they are going to make progress in 

investigations. And one reason why we called and have been calling 

for a very long time to the institutions of justice is that they are 

the ones who are actually producing some of these results these 

days. If the justice——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am briefly interrupting you for a moment. The 

fact that 14 members of the Colombian Congress are currently 

under indictment to me speaks loudly of the sincerity of the effort. 

Now, it is not—it is certainly messy and yes, statements are being 

heard that I don’t necessarily agree with, but we are beginning to 

expose it. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. If the justice and peace law was applied as it 

was passed, we would not be here today. The only reason they are 

required to confess truthfully is because the Colombia constitutional court fixed the law. The original law did not require confession, it did not provide for investigations. The paramilitaries were 

supposed to say whatever they wanted; a judge would accept their 

statement and a prosecutor would have 60 days to investigate. 

That was it, and that was the law President Uribe put forward. It 

was a constitutional court who changed that. And it was a Supreme Court through independent investigations that were not led 

by the executive branch that started the prosecution of the congressmen. 

So I want to make it clear, yes, we want to support institutions 

of justice, there are good things going on there, but that doesn’t 

mean that the political will is necessarily there to see this through 

to its conclusion and the proposal to allow these people, everybody, 

all the politicians, all the supporters of paramilitaries who are 

eventually convicted to let them go free has no justification, it does 

not further peace. On the contrary, what it does is say no matter 

what you do, no matter how many paramilitaries you support, you 

can always find a way to get off the hook and you don’t even have 

to be mobilized to do it, you don’t even have to come forward, even 

if we catch you, we are going to let you go. That is exactly the message it sends. 
78

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. My staff informs me that there is 

shortly to be another hearing in this room. 

I understand the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is returning. We will give her a few seconds, but in the interim let me 

thank all of you for your testimony. I think it was a good beginning. I think that this process will be extremely beneficial for the 

American people as well as for the Colombian people. 

As I have said to others, I, earlier this week, had a meeting with 

the Deputy Minister, the Deputy First Minister of the new government in Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, who allegedly—allegedly—was a member of the Irish Republican Army, and with the 

English Peter Robinson, who is the Finance Minister in the new 

government. 

They were sitting side by side and we all were celebrating what 

clearly is an historic moment, not just in the history of Ireland, but 

an opportunity and an example for other nations and in other societies to emulate. It is not easy, it is messy, it is difficult, but I can 

say this as an Irish American, if the Irish can do it, anybody can 

do it. 

With that, I will yield to the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So wonderful to have the kind of spirited and 

committed leadership of this committee, I want to thank the chairpersons, Mr. Delahunt—I am not Irish, but I have celebrated in 

that settlement of which Chairman Delahunt—I traveled extensively with former Chairman Gilman, who engaged in those discussions along with Bill Clinton. So whenever we can celebrate that 

kind of legacy and ultimate resolution, we are happy and I thank 

Chairman Engel for turning the page on this important question of 

South and Central America. 

I am going to use this time to say that we might have now filled 

the record over and over again and I heard the closing or the remarks of the chairman, said everybody should get together, but I 

am going to pose this question because I left on the note that the 

killing must stop. 

Ms. McFarland, you made an interesting point. It goes up, it goes 

down, the decline is sometimes explainable by many, many reasons, but that does not give us comfort that it is stopped. I am 

going ask for the same documentation about who is involved with 

whom in committing these crimes. I think many of us who are lawyers want to see the evidence. But the most important point is to 

be able to say to families that your loved ones who have chosen to 

be freedom fighter union organizers, when I say freedom fighters, 

freedom fighters for rights of workers do not have to meet an untimely death just because of their profession. 

To each of the panelists, tell me what the United States needs 

to do, one, to give credibility to what has been represented to us 

by President Uribe that we are not involved; two, to give comfort 

to those who, are being said, are dying, and I will ask each of you, 

starting with Mr. Ramirez—I assume someone is interpreting or he 

is listening and he will then respond in Spanish—what does the 

United States need to do? Are we continuing as foreign policy, continuing to ignore, are we continuing to embolden, empower, can we 

be instrumental in one or two actions to begin to turn a corner, and 
79

I am not talking about the Colombia plan, I already know that, I 

have been there, what else? 

Mr. Ramirez. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. RAMIREZ. I will reiterate the petition of the Colombia workers to this Congress. We need there to be control over the military 

aid that is arriving in Colombia to fight the drugs and to fight the 

guerillas. And I want to reiterate that companies must have good 

conditions for investment in our country, but that does not need to 

translate into corruption and violence against the civilian population. 

We also need you and the other organizations that we work with, 

for example, the churches, to pressure the multinational companies 

to have better practices. We know there are companies like Drummond that contribute to political campaigns, but if I were a politician the first thing I would demand the company contributing to 

political campaigns have ethical practices. This should be true of 

Drummond and of all companies. And we have hoped that you will 

understand this message and work with us to preserve and protect 

the lives of Colombian unionists. 

There have also been complaints filed before the ILO and the 

U.N., and this pressure could also help improve the situation. That 

is basically what we are asking. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Guzman, a solution. 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. GUZMAN. I think one thing that is controlling the arms and 

the drugs coming into this country, which are one of the reasons 

for the conflicts happening in Colombia and the fighting over the 

land, and to take a look at and try to control the Colombia politics 

that are controlled by any of the illegal groups that are operating 

there, that pressure could help get rid of those links. And to ask 

the multinational companies operating in Colombia to not make 

any more payments to any illegal groups. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Gracias. Mr. Kovalik. 

Mr. KOVALIK. Thank you, Congresswoman, I think first of all my 

own thought is one should be guided by the first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath, and that is to do no harm. 

I think the support for the Colombian military as constituted, 

particularly the army, is doing a lot of harm. I think it is supporting—the State Department says this military we are supporting is collaborating with paramilitaries. Look at every State 

Department report for the last several years. Supporting the military is supporting the paramilitaries. 

I think the House has done something wonderful in changing the 

mix now between the military and social aid to Colombia, but I 

think it has to go farther, I think you need to focus on the economic 

and social supports to improve that society, to get people work so 

they are not lured into armed groups as a lifestyle and as a job. 

And I think one has to go back to the RAND Corporation study 

that is now 20 years old—I don’t know if it is 20, but RAND Corporation some time ago said it is 20 times more effective to treat 

drug addiction in this country than it is to try to destroy coca at 

the source, and that is what we are doing in Colombia. We need 
80

to treat addiction in this country and find why people feel they 

need to be anesthetized all the time by cocaine or whatever, which 

will improve lives here and not focus on military assistance on coca 

medication which isn’t working. After the billions of dollars put 

there coca production went up last year 8 percent, it is not working. 

So we need to help with crop substitution, we need to do things 

to support the peace and not support the war, and I think that that 

is a start for any policy that this Congress could have. 

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you for your passion. 

Ms. McFarland. 

Ms. MCFARLAND. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think there are 

three ways the U.S. can help. One, the U.S. has a responsibility to 

investigate corporations to the extent they are involved. These are 

serious allegations that are being made. The U.S. should take them 

seriously and look into them. 

Secondly, in terms of Colombia I know you have already done a 

lot on this, but conditions on military assistance have to be stronger, they have to be enforced. Unfortunately, the State Department 

typically certifies regardless of what is going on, and I think the 

new language helps in that regard. 

Also, the U.S. should be increasing the support for the institutions that are working, the institutions of justice, and it needs to 

support human rights protection, monitoring and civil society. 

And finally, I think that support needs to be coupled with pressure. It needs to come with strong conditions, demanding Colombia 

to meet, to show certain results before the Free Trade Agreement. 

This is leverage, this is something that Colombia really wants and 

we want Colombia to get there. We want Colombia to one day be 

able to have a Free Trade Agreement, but it shouldn’t have it while 

it has this atrocious record of impunity for workers’ rights abuse, 

for killing workers and while it is making these concessions to paramilitary commanders instead of ensuring a full dismantlement. 

I think Colombia needs to show that it has an unambiguous policy toward paramilitaries and it is actively moving to take away 

their assets, take away the cell phones of the commanders who are 

in prison who are apparently committing crimes with them. 

There are a number of very basic steps to show that it is serious 

about protecting workers’ rights. It can start showing that the unit 

that is investigating the trade unions is actually producing wellgrounded convictions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ambassador? 

Ambassador REICH. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. And thank you, Ms. McFarland, 

for your work. 

Ambassador REICH. I think the source of the problem not only in 

Colombia but the rest of Latin America is money. One thing we can 

do is enforce our own laws and several of the members of the panel 

have stated that, but let me tell you a specific section, section 

212(F) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act is something that 

is available, that is part of the law, it is enforced sporadically, it 

is an anti-corruption tool which President Bush signed as a proclamation in January 2004, and in the interest of full disclosure I had 
81

something to do with that, because I as an ambassador and someone who has been in Latin America for 4 years professionally, I 

know that if we can fight corruption we can fight the violence. A 

lot of the discussion has centered around money——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What is your explanation of the language not 

being enforced by——

Ambassador REICH. It has been left to the discretion of the local 

U.S. ambassador in the country. It enables the Embassy to revoke 

a visa; we revoke visas on many grounds, there are like 700 different grounds. Everybody knows narcotic trafficking is criminal, 

but we actually made the law very, very clear that corruption is 

one of the bases on which a visa can be revoked. It is an incredible 

tool, but it is powerful. The State Department is reluctant to use 

it. I am happy to spend more time with you on it. 

Second, we need to increase the human rights training for the 

Colombian military. It would be counterproductive to cut off funding. I don’t think a reasonable person would consider that. You said 

you wanted to go beyond Plan Colombia. I would increase the 

human rights training. A lot of people think U.S. influence, U.S. 

military influence is bad, it is very positive. When I was—100 

years ago I was a second lieutenant in the United States Army in 

Panama and we trained, we taught courses on human rights and 

civic action to a lot of reluctant officers from Latin America. We 

don’t need to teach people to beat innocent civilians over the head. 

They do that unfortunately on their own. We need to show them 

why they shouldn’t do that. 

Third, we need to stop the Cuban and Venezuelan support for 

FARC and the ELA in Colombia. And President Uribe has said 

that Venezuela provides a safe haven for the FARC. We know they 

do. I can’t get into things that I may have picked up when I was 

in government, but it has been reported. And I think that more has 

to be done to expose the Cuban and Venezuelan support for the 

guerillas in Colombia and stop it militarily if necessary. 

Fourth, I agree—I find myself in unusual agreement with one of 

the members of the panel to shifting the anti-narcotics fight to the 

demand side. We have spent far too much money on the supply 

side. On eradication I was the head of AID for Latin America, I had 

to defend these practices at this very table. And frankly 25 years 

later they are just not working. We need to shift the anti-narcotics 

fight to the demand side and make it much more difficult for people to get away with dealing and using narcotics. 

Finally, we have to be very careful to avoid another Iran. Let’s 

not make the mistakes that our Government made with Iran under 

the Shah. That was a government that violated human rights. That 

was replaced by a government much, much worse. The world is not 

just black and white, there are a lot of shades of gray. We have 

to have a policy that—we have to be careful that some of the recommendations you have heard here today, if we undermined the 

Uribe government it could very well—we could go back to where we 

were 5 or 6 years ago, which was chaos and the possible collapse 

of Colombia or he could be replaced by Chavez, Castro or some ayatollah or somebody we can’t even imagine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me first of all thank you for your enormous charitable spirit on this and I just want to conclude by saying 
82

I respect the Ambassador, who has made some very good points 

and all the other members. Let’s not have another Iraq with respect to any conversation on attack. 

I do think improving the diplomacy between Cuba and Venezuela 

and the United States would—I am sure many would want to comment, but I am ending my remarks—go a long way on some of 

these issues. 

Lastly, I hope that the advocates who are here it may be interpreted—I would not like to surmise who is Afro-Colombian and 

who is not at the table, but in your advocacy do not leave out the 

rights of millions of Afro-Colombians whose rights by whatever 

basis have been diminished, and certainly I know there are great 

efforts to move in that direction. We applaud actions of the government, but I do believe human rights issues and labor should embrace, though many may be in labor, the lack of equity for AfroColombians as we move toward helping Colombia rise where it 

should be. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank you, gentlelady. With that we now adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

Æ