Narco News publishes the full text
of the February 27, 2002 depostion by Assistant Secretary of
State for International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs
Rand Beers in the federal lawsuit by Ecuador's Farmers vs. DynCorp
For background info see:
(Due to the length of this document
it is broken into three parts: Pages 1-29, pages 30-59, pages 60-88)
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
3 -----------------------------------x
4 VENACIO AGUASANTA ARIAS, et al., :
5 Plaintiffs, :
6 vs. : Case Number
7 DYNCORP, et al., : 1:01CV01908
8 Defendants. :
9 -----------------------------------x
10
11 Wednesday, February 27, 2002
12 Washington, D.C.
13
14 Deposition of RAND BEERS, held at the offices
of
15 the International Labor Rights Fund, 733 15th
16 Street, N.W., Suite 920, Washington, D.C.,
17 commencing at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February
27,
18 2002, before SHIRLEY S MITCHELL, Notary Public
for
19 the District of Columbia.
20
21
22
1 A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L:
2 FOR PLAINTIFFS:
3 INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND
4 BY: Terry Collingsworth, Esq.
5 Natacha Thys, Esq.
6 733 15 Street, N.W., Suite 920
7 Washington, D.C. 20005
8 (202) 347-4100
9
10 FOR DEFENDANT:
11 SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH
12 BY: Joe G. Hollingsworth, Esq.
13 1350 I Street, N.W.
14 Washington, D.C. 20005-3305
15 (202) 898-5842
16
17 FOR THE WITNESS:
18 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
19 BY: William Alvarado Rivera,
Esq.
20 901 E Street, N.W.
21 Washington, D.C. 20530
22 (202) 514-6582
3
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2
3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
4 BY: Leland S. VanKoten Esq.
5 P.O. Box 340
6 Ben Franklin Station
7 Washington, D.C. 20044
8 (202) 616-4230
9
10 DEPARTMENT OF STATE
11 Office of Legal Adviser
12 BY: Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq.
13 1701 N. Fort Myer Drive
14 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
15 (703) 516-1535
16
17
18 P R E S E N T
19 R.Y. Morrel, Vice President
20 DynCorp
21
22
4
1 C O N T E N T S
2
3 WITNESS: Rand Beers
4
5 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
6 Mr. Collingsworth 6
7
8
9
10
11 QUESTION MARKED: 42
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
5
1 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
2 (BEERS)
3
4 NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED
5 1 Declaration entitled 11
6 Exhibit B
7 2 Class Action Complaint 16
8 3 Letter dated 2/26/02 18
9 4 Portion of Contract 22
10 5 60 Minutes interview 44
11 6 Final Report 69
12 7 State Department Report 70
13 8 Narcotics Affairs report 72
14 9 Declaration 81
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
6
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 Whereupon,
3 RAND BEERS
4 was called as the witness and, after having been
5 first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as
6 follows:
7 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Mr. Beers, I thank you for coming
10 today. My name is Terry Collingsworth, and I'm
the
11 lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Arias
12 litigation, and you're about to be deposed in
that
13 action.
14 Do you understand that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. Have you ever had your deposition
17 taken before?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In what circumstance?
20 A. I was --
21 Q. How many times?
22 A. Once.
7
1 Q. In what circumstance?
2 A. I was deposed in association with
a
3 case involving the Golden Venture, a ship which
4 smuggled Chinese aliens into the United States
5 about eight or nine ago.
6 Q. Do you understand the process
that I
7 ask you a question and you answer the question
8 truthfully?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. If you don't understand the
11 question, I would like you to make that clear
so
12 that I can try to restate it so that it is clear.
13 A. I understand.
14 Q. If you need a break for any reason,
15 please let me know and we will accommodate you.
16 A. That would be much appreciated
if
17 necessary.
18 Q. What is your current position?
19 A. My current position is the Assistant
20 Secretary of State for International Narcotics
&
21 Law Enforcement Affairs.
22 Q. How long have you held that
8
1 position?
2 A. I have been either the
3 congressionally-confirmed secretary or the acting
4 assistant secretary since the 5th of January
1998.
5 Q. Are you represented by counsel
here
6 today?
7 A. I am.
8 Q. Who is your counsel here today?
9 A. These gentleman (indicating).
10 Q. All three of them?
11 A. All three of them.
12 Q. So you have three lawyers here
today
13 to assure you that you are not going to spill
any
14 State secrets; is that correct?
15 A. I have three counsel here. Thank
16 you.
17 Q. Prior to your current position,
did
18 you hold any positions that had anything to do
with
19 Plan Columbia?
20 A. Plan Columbia is a concept which
did
21 not occur until after I became the Assistant
22 Secretary of State.
9
1 Q. Was there any predecessor program
to
2 Plan Columbia that you did have some responsibility
3 for in a prior position?
4 A. The United States has had a
5 relationship with Columbia dealing with
6 counternarcotics for a number of decades. I
first
7 began to work in the counternarcotics area in
1988
8 when I was on the National Security Counsel staff.
9 Q. Did you help in any way to design
10 that initial program?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What was your responsibility?
13 A. There was a series of strategy
14 developments dating back, in terms of my
15 involvement, to a 1999 development of a regional
16 strategy for the Andean region. I was involved
in
17 the development of that strategy, and I had bits
18 and pieces to do with most of the further
19 development from a variety of different positions.
20 Q. What is the genesis of what we
now
21 call Plan Columbia?
22 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
10
1 question as vague. What do you mean by genesis?
2 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
3 Q. When did what we now call Plan
4 Columbia officially start?
5 A. It officially became Plan Columbia,
6 if you will, in the summer of 1999.
7 Q. What was its purpose as you
8 understood it?
9 A. The purpose of Plan Columbia was
to
10 deal with the increased cultivation and illegal
11 activity associated with that cultivation
12 concerning narco trafficking in Columbia.
13 Q. Was it exclusively in Columbia?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Where else was it applying?
16 A. It was looked at as, to a lesser
17 extent, a regional strategy which involved all
of
18 the Andean nations.
19 Q. Was there any explicit component
of
20 Plan Columbia at its beginning in 1999 that
21 contains an antiterrorist element?
22 A. No.
11
1 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I am now going
to
2 hand you a document that I would like marked
as
3 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1. Just to be completely
clear
4 in the record, this is Exhibit B to the DynCorp
5 Motion to Dismiss. It is the Declaration of
Rand
6 Beers.
7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
1
8 was marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Mr. Beers, can you take a moment
to
11 look at Exhibit Number 1 and tell me if you can
12 identify it.
13 A. It is a document which I signed
as
14 representing my views with respect to our
15 relationship with DynCorp and the U.S. government's
16 involvement in relations with Columbia.
17 Q. Are you aware that you signed
it
18 under oath?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who drafted this document?
21 A. The initial draft was done by
22 DynCorp. It was reviewed within the State
12
1 Department by my staff.
2 Q. Who is DonCorp?
3 A. DynCorp.
4 Q. Do you know which particular person
5 at DynCorp drafted this?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know if it was outside
8 counsel that drafted it?
9 A. No, I do not know.
10 Q. How did it come to you first?
11 A. From my staff.
12 Q. Which person on your staff?
13 A. I believe it was Bob Etheridge.
14 Q. What is his position?
15 A. He's the head liaison officer
for
16 the State Department Air Wing stationed in
17 Washington, D.C.
18 Q. Can you describe for me the
19 circumstances under which you first saw this
20 document?
21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, are you speaking
22 to the first draft of this document?
13
1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
2 Q. Yes, your first experience with
this
3 declaration.
4 A. When it was brought to my attention
5 by Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Etheridge as a document
6 which they had worked over and wanted me to look
at
7 since I was to be the signer of that document.
8 Q. Did you review it at that time?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Did you make any changes to it?
11 A. I believe I did.
12 Q. Did you make the changes in
13 handwriting on a draft?
14 A. I believe I did.
15 Q. Do you know if that document has
16 been preserved?
17 A. I do not.
18 Q. You do not know?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Tell me, looking at this document,
21 if you recall anything that you specifically
added
22 to it or you specifically made as a change to
it.
14
1 A. I don't recall.
2 Q. Did you make a lot of changes
to it?
3 A. I don't remember.
4 Q. You don't remember?
5 A. (No response.)
6 Q. Is that a yes, you do not remember?
7 A. That is a yes, I do not remember.
8 Q. How long of a process was it in
9 terms of your time?
10 A. In terms of my time, I believe
I
11 read the draft at least twice.
12 Q. Did you read a different draft?
13 A. The second draft that I would
have
14 read would have reflected at least my changes.
15 Q. So you got a first draft and you
16 read it; is that correct?
17 A. I got a draft. I wouldn't call
it a
18 first draft.
19 Q. The first draft you saw, you read
20 and you made some changes to?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. You believe you made changes in
15
1 handwriting on the document?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. You gave it back to whom?
4 A. It would have either been Mr.
5 Gallagher or Mr. Etheridge. I don't remember.
6 Q. Then did you get to view a
7 subsequent draft?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. You read that document?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Did you make any changes to it?
12 A. I do not remember a second set
of
13 changes.
14 Q. You believe you signed that second
15 draft after reviewing it?
16 A. That is my belief, that's correct.
17 Q. In the context of reviewing your
18 Declaration, did you review any external documents
19 to refresh your recollection about any of the
20 representations made in this Declaration?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you review a copy of the
16
1 Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case?
2 A. I don't remember.
3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Can we mark this
as
4 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2.
5 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
2
6 was marked for identification.)
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 is a copy
of
9 the Complaint filed in this action by the
10 plaintiffs. I again have a couple of extra copies
11 if anyone needs one.
12 Mr. Beers, we have handed you
13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2, it is the Plaintiffs'
14 Complaint in this case. I'm asking to you look
it
15 over and tell me if you have ever seen this before.
16 A. I do to not remember having seen
it.
17 Q. Mr. Beers, I want to be very clear
18 on this, and I'm not trying to be in any way
19 facetious.
20 Is it that you don't remember
or
21 that you didn't see it?
22 A. Sir, I see a lot of documents
in my
17
1 day-to-day business, and I can't tell you every
2 document that I've seen. It may have passed
across
3 my desk. It may not have passed across my desk.
I
4 truthfully cannot answer that question, other
than
5 to say I don't remember.
6 Q. As you sit here today, do you
have
7 any personal knowledge about the nature of the
8 Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case?
9 A. Yes, I have had the Complaint
10 explained to me.
11 Q. Tell me, if you can, what you
12 understand the Plaintiffs are attempting to achieve
13 here.
14 A. It is my understanding that the
15 Plaintiffs, Ecuadorians, are seeking to have
some
16 kind of what you, a lawyer, might call injunctive
17 relief -- I'm not a lawyer, and that may not
be the
18 correct term -- with respect to DynCorp's
19 activities in Columbia because of its alleged
20 effect upon the Plaintiffs.
21 Q. That's your understanding that
you
22 believe that they are trying to get an injunction
18
1 to stop the spraying in Columbia?
2 A. I did not say that.
3 MR. RIVERA: Objection.
4 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
5 Q. Then correct me because that's
what
6 I heard. I'm sorry.
7 A. I said injunctive relief.
8 Q. What kind of injunctive relief?
9 A. I don't know.
10 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, I'm
11 handing you a document that we will call
12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3, which is a
13 February 26, 2002 letter to me from Mr. Gallagher.
14 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
3
15 was marked for identification.)
16 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
17 Q. Mr. Beers, I would like you to
18 quickly review this list of documents here that
19 were transmitted to me by Mr. Gallagher.
20 A. (Examining.)
21 Yes.
22 Q. Did you review any of those
19
1 documents in your preparation to sign the
2 Declaration that we have called Plaintiffs'
3 Exhibit 1?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know of any documents that
6 relate to Plan Columbia that have informed you
of
7 your view that are not on this list?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Are there any other testing
10 documents about Plan Columbia that are not on
this
11 list?
12 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
13 question. Testing?
14 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
15 Q. Are there any documents that discuss
16 testing the safety of the fumigant used in Plan
17 Columbia that are not on this list?
18 A. I don't know the answer to that
19 question.
20 Q. Who would know the answer to that
21 question?
22 A. People who work in the Air Wing
of
20
1 the State Department.
2 Q. Can you give me a name or two
of
3 someone on your staff who would be the person
that
4 you would go to who is an expert on the testing
of
5 the safety of Plan Columbia materials?
6 A. I would go to Mr. Etheridge, but
Mr.
7 Etheridge may not be the expert on that particular
8 subject. He is the head of the Liaison office
in
9 Washington D.C.
10 Q. Let's now focus on what we call
Plan
11 Columbia. You said it began in 1999; is that
12 correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Is there a particular statute
that
15 authorizes Plan Columbia?
16 A. There is an appropriations document
17 which funds Plan Columbia which is self-authorized.
18 Q. I'm sorry?
19 A. Is self-authorized.
20 Q. What does that mean,
21 self-authorized?
22 A. In the normal appropriations
21
1 process, there is an authorizing bill and there
is
2 an appropriating bill. The authorizing bill
3 authorizes the appropriations, and the
4 appropriation bill actually appropriates the
money.
5 This was a supplemental
6 appropriation. There was no authorizing document,
7 bill, law passed separately. So the document,
the
8 bill, the law authorizes itself. This is not
an
9 infrequent device.
10 Q. Does any portion of the
11 appropriation bill authorize the spraying of
12 fumigants in Ecuador?
13 A. I do not remember.
14 Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit
15 here, that it might be that you're allowed to
spray
16 in Ecuador under Plan Columbia?
17 A. I think it would be more likely
that
18 it would not have been prohibited.
19 Q. Is there any contractual
20 authorization for DynCorp to spray in Ecuador?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Sorry?
22
1 A. No.
2 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to hand
you
3 another document and we're going to call this
4 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4.
5 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
4
6 was marked for identification.)
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. Mr. Beers, the document I have
9 handed to you, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4, is apparently
10 some portion of a contract between the State
11 Department and DynCorp for Plan Columbia. This
is
12 the version that is available on the Internet.
13 I would first like you to review
14 that and tell me if it in fact is a portion of
the
15 contract between DynCorp and the Department of
16 State.
17 A. (Examining.)
18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Excuse me, I object
19 to that question on the grounds that I don't
20 understand it. Are you saying that this purports
21 to be the contract between DynCorp and the United
22 States?
23
1 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes. I'm asking
2 Mr. Beers if he can tell me if it's true.
3 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
4 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
5 Q. Have you ever seen the contract
that
6 is between the State Department and DynCorp
7 authorizing the spraying in Columbia that is
going
8 on now?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Who in the State Department would
11 have signed such a contract?
12 A. I don't know the answer to that
13 specifically.
14 Q. You have never seen the actual
15 contract?
16 A. No, not to my knowledge.
17 Q. I just asked you, though, if the
18 contract authorizes DynCorp to spray in Ecuador,
19 and you said no; is that correct?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. What is the basis of your knowledge
22 of that if you have not seen the contract?
24
1 A. Being briefed on the contract's
2 contents.
3 Q. Who briefed you on the contents?
4 A. It would have been Mr. Etheridge
or
5 other members of the Air Wing.
6 Q. The?
7 A. Air Wing.
8 Q. What is the Air Wing?
9 A. It's the office within the bureau
of
10 International Narcotics & Law Enforcement
Affairs
11 which is responsible for working the contract
with
12 DynCorp.
13 Q. So it would be fair to say, then,
14 that if DynCorp sprayed in Ecuador, that would
be
15 in violation of the contract?
16 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
17 question. It mischaracterizes the witness's
18 testimony. For point of clarification, are you
19 talking about intentional spraying or unintentional
20 spraying into Ecuador?
21 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's take a look
at
22 both of those.
25
1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
2 MR. RIVERA: You can answer the question
3 if you understood it, or if you need it read
back,
4 the court reporter can do that for you.
5 THE WITNESS: As I said, DynCorp is
not
6 authorized to spray in Ecuador.
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. Are you aware of any requests
made
9 by the government of Ecuador to the United States
10 government or the government of Columbia to stop
11 spraying in Ecuador?
12 A. No.
13 MR. GALLAGHER: Objection. Assumes
facts
14 not in evidence.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. The answer was?
17 A. I am not aware.
18 Q. Are you aware of a meeting that
19 occurred roughly on Wednesday, February 13th
20 between representatives of the government of
21 Ecuador and the government of Columbia and
22 Mr. Baca, who I believe works for you?
26
1 A. No, I'm not.
2 Q. Does Mr. Baca work for you?
3 A. Yes. He is the director of the
4 Narcotics Affairs Section in the U.S. Embassy
in
5 Bogota. Technically, he works for the embassador
6 and not for me. The line of command is through
the
7 embassador.
8 Q. Does he report directly to you
9 information?
10 A. He reports information to me.
He
11 does not report directly to me.
12 MR. RIVERA: Do we have a first name
for
13 Mr. Baca?
14 THE WITNESS: Richard.
15 MR. RIVERA: Just to make sure we're
16 talking about the same Mr. Baca for clarity on
the
17 record.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Richard Baca.
20 Do you know if Mr. Baca is engaged
21 in discussions about the width of an area at
the
22 border of Columbia where no spraying will be
27
1 permitted?
2 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
3 question. Discussions with whom?
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: The government
of
5 Ecuador and the government of Columbia.
6 MR. RIVERA: The witness may answer
7 subject to the restriction that may not reveal
any
8 classified or State secret information.
9 THE WITNESS: I do not know.
10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
11 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
12 that have occurred between anyone on the issue
of
13 creating an area from the Ecuadorian border into
14 Columbia where no spraying would be permitted
to
15 avoid spraying in Ecuador?
16 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
17 THE WITNESS: I am aware of that, yes.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. What is your awareness?
20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: I'm following counsel's
22 advice on discussing the exact nature of it.
28
1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
2 Q. I'm not clear then.
3 You are aware that these discussions
4 are going on between the government of Ecuador
--
5 A. No. I'm sorry, you asked me a
6 separate question. You said am I aware of
7 discussions about a buffer zone. The answer
to
8 that is yes.
9 Q. The buffer zone being an area
from
10 the border of Ecuador into Columbia where no
11 spraying would be permitted to avoid spraying
in
12 Ecuador; is that correct?
13 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
14 question as compound. You may answer.
15 THE WITNESS: I am aware of the
16 discussions of a buffer zone.
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. You're not aware that Mr. Baca
is
19 participating in them?
20 A. No. I am not aware of discussions
21 with the government of Ecuador.
22 Q. There are discussions between
the
29
1 government of Columbia and the government of
the
2 United States; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Mr. Baca is leading those
5 discussions?
6 A. Those discussions transpired long
7 before Mr. Baca arrived at the post.
8 Q. When did those discussions occur?
9 A. At the early time of the initiation
10 of spring in the Putumayo department.
11 Q. That would have been in 1999?
12 A. No. That would have been in the
13 fall of 2000.
14 Q. How did those discussions conclude?
15 A. I'm not going to discuss that.
16 Q. You're not going to discuss that
17 because?
18 A. I don't want to draw attention
to
19 the methods of operations of DynCorp and Columbian
20 pilots because we're talking about a matter that
21 may affect their safety.
22 MR. RIVERA: Just to be clear, I suppose
Due to the length
of this document it is broken into three parts:
For more Narco
News, click here
Authentic
Journalism. Authentic Law.
on the U.S. government's list that are known to
36
1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?
2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
3 THE WITNESS: There is general
4 information that the BART from time to time has
5 some of its elements within Ecuador.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?
8 A. Within Sucumbios.
9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do
my
10 best.
11 A. Nor do I.
12 Q. I would like to direct your
13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.
14 It begins, "As directed by
the
15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly
with
16 the United States military," et cetera,
et cetera.
17 Who within the Bureau would be
the
18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are
19 directing DynCorp?
20 A. It would be me and through me
the
21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,
22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his
37
1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second
chain
2 of command from the embassador through the
3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.
4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in
5 Narcotics --
6 A. He is the director.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel
9 finishes his question before you answer.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. How frequent are the interactions
in
13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp
14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly
15 thing?
16 A. It is a constant relationship.
It
17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work
18 together.
19 Q. I understand the limitations on
what
20 you can say here, but what are the general issues
21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis
in
22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is
it
38
1 what to spray? What are the general issues?
2 A. Logistics.
3 Q. What do you mean by that?
4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft
5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material
6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its
7 function.
8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph
26
9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to
10 develop detailed flight plans.
11 Can you tell me how that works?
12 A. The government of Columbia with
the
13 support of the United States determines where
coca
14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic
15 precision that allows a specific field to be
16 designated as a field to be sprayed.
17 The general geographic area and
then
18 the fields themselves are determined with the
final
19 responsibility for saying that those areas may
be
20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.
21 The flight plans are then laid
out
22 for a particular day to cover the fields from
among
39
1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that
2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off
of
3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines
4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions
are
5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray
6 effectively to the target selected and only if
the
7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,
8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The
9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then
10 take off and return to base.
11 If an unusual condition results
12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot
has
13 the authority to return to base on his own
14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a
15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp
and
16 flown by the Columbian National Police.
17 Q. When you were speaking earlier
about
18 the logistics and the interaction between the
19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia
20 involved in those logistical coordination
21 activities as well?
22 A. Only insofar as it may involve
a
40
1 flight clearance to move something from point
A to
2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our
own
3 DynCorp logistical back up.
4 Q. Is a computer program prepared
based
5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the
6 spray pattern of the airplane?
7 A. There is a program set which is
used
8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.
9 Q. How is that created?
10 A. It's created in the -- as a result
11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken
from
12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every
field
13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on
that,
14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are
15 registered on that.
16 Q. Who creates the computer program
in
17 cases where there is one?
18 A. It would be a, I believe,
19 subcontractor of DynCorp.
20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.
21 Do you know the name of the
22 subcontractor?
41
1 A. I don't recall off the top of
my
2 head.
3 Q. Do you know where that computer
4 program is created physically? Is it created
in
5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United
6 States?
7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.
8 Q. Do you know the lag time between
9 gathering the information and actually having
the
10 computer program ready to be operational?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do your flight plans take account
of
13 the issue of drift?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How do they do that?
16 A. As I said earlier, they are not
17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.
18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?
19 A. Pilots can make a decision in
20 flight.
21 Q. Are you aware of any studies
22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect
42
1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used
in
2 Plan Columbia?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Are you aware that there are any
5 studies?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
was
8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first
9 began?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
is
12 being used now?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
15 A. I am not at liberty to say.
16 Q. I'm sorry?
17 A. I am not at liberty to say.
18 Q. Is that a national security secret
19 what the actual spray is?
20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
21 question on the grounds that the identity of
the
22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege
43
1 concerning another national security law
2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for
3 information submitted upon a pledge of
4 confidentiality with the government.
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection,
also
6 based on the contract.
7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to
mark
8 that one because I don't believe that you will
be
9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name
of
10 the spray being used.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. What company makes it?
17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Has the spray changed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When did it change?
44
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Why was it changed?
3 A. I'm not sure.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.
6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
5
7 was marked for identification.)
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which
is
10 a transcript of your famous appearance on
11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take
a
12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately
13 reflects what you said.
14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness
to
15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there
16 particular portions that you would like him to
look
17 at?
18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.
19 He can read the portions that he did actually
say.
20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make
21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.
22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)
45
1 Those are all my words to the best
of my
2 recollection.
3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this
5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,
6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct.
By
7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more
8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."
9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are
you
10 on?
11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the
point
12 you're making.
13 It's on page 2 of mine.
14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're
on the
15 same page, literally.
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow
17 are different. Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are
quoted
20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison,
table
21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic
as
22 glyphosate."
46
1 A. Glyphosate.
2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals
3 being sprayed in Columbia?
4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name
of
5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.
6 Q. In the next set of questions,
7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you
don't
8 claim any kind of national security privilege,
and
9 instead you answer the questions about the
10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's
what
11 it appears to be saying.
12 Am I incorrect there?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What are you intending to answer
15 there?
16 A. I'm doing two things at the same
17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,
18 and I am responding to his question about how
a
19 specific commercial vendor might set up their
own
20 guidelines.
21 Q. But you don't --
22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup
47
1 is what is being used in Columbia.
2 Q. For purposes of our going to the
3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue
4 you are claiming national security on here is
5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are
6 spraying --
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.
8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what
we
9 mean.
10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?
12 A. We are not acknowledging the name
of
13 the supplier.
14 Q. That is a national security secret?
15 A. Counsel made the objections.
16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information
17 protected by one of the governmental privileges
18 including information submitted to the government
19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the
law
20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national
21 security privilege.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
48
1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate
is
2 one of the chemicals?
3 A. We can certainly talk about
4 glyphosate.
5 Q. Are there any other chemicals
that
6 are added to the mixture that is being used in
Plan
7 Columbia besides glyphosate?
8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate
as the
9 generic active agent that is used to actually
10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals
11 which are included, and they are called
12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the
13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough
to
14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like
15 baby shampoo.
16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that
17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture
20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Is another one something called
49
1 Poea, P-o-e-a?
2 A. I believe that is the correct
name.
3 Q. What is the difference, as you
sit
4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?
5 A. They're produced by different
6 manufacturers.
7 Q. But they do the same thing?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which of them is being used in
Plan
10 Columbia?
11 A. Both.
12 Q. Together?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why would you need two of them?
15 A. Because in the commercially
16 available mixture which we purchase, the second
of
17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient
of the
18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux
19 in addition to that to have an additional
20 surfactant effect.
21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you
are
22 adding manufactured?
50
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Do you know the name of the company
3 that manufacturers it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Has the company that is supplying
6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan
7 Columbia, has the company changed from the
8 beginning of the program until now?
9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Let me direct your attention to
13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,
14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at
certain
15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture
16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying
to
17 say is that the levels that we apply are well
below
18 any of those levels."
19 Did you, in fact, say that?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors
22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain
51
1 dosage level would kill someone?
2 A. The science, as I understand it,
is
3 that the dosage level would have to be a
4 considerable degree greater than the very small
5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow
6 to land on an individual.
7 The actual mixture of either
8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on
an
9 individual, a naked person of approximately
10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never
11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams
of
12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus
13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining
2
14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.
15 That's hardly anything,
16 approximating what the standard tests have
17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate
18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United
19 States and testing would be.
20 Q. Is there any process under which
21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,
22 the content of it?
52
1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the
form
2 of that. It's unclear to me.
3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll
try
5 again.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and
8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical
9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of
10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on
what
11 it is made of?
12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that
14 products which are manufactured and sold in the
15 United States are tested regularly. That's the
16 test data we have.
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in
the
19 United States the exact same chemical formulation
20 with the addition of these two surfactants that
21 you've described in testing it?
22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within
the
53
1 United States.
2 Q. When you say that the people who
are
3 testing it in the United States, that would be
4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is
the
5 same, right?
6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
7 question.
8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Everyone objected to the form
of the
11 question, but the issue is whether you understood
12 the question.
13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.
15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the
16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in
the
17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the
18 matter at hand.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Why is that?
21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm
22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'
54
1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a
bit
2 far afield from what he was supposed to be
3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving
4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.
5 But my understanding of his authorization and
the
6 request for his testimony today really concerns
the
7 policy position of the State Department and various
8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on
9 national security and other concerns that are
10 described in the Declaration rather than the
11 science or the health effects, for the most part,
12 of the herbicide.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct
14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'
15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions
16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern
for
17 human health. I believe that my questions are
18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few
19 more which I would like to complete.
20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
21 Q. You were beginning to explain
to me
22 the relevance of the testing that is done on
one
55
1 compound to the actual health effects of the
2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.
3 Why did you say that it was
4 relevant?
5 A. When you get to the actual mixture
6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when
it
7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest
8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate
and
9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate
10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk
of
11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual
out
12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.
13 We have, because it is not sold
in
14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the
15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis
by
16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking
at
17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux
as
18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United
19 States.
20 That, in combination with the
21 testing against the commercially available products
22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us
the
56
1 view that is contained in the statement.
2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually
3 tested on humans the specific compounds together
4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?
5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no
one
6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or
7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.
8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific
9 tests done on animals to test the effects of
the
10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed
in
11 Plan Columbia?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Are there any plans to do such
a
14 test?
15 A. We are considering the possibility.
16 Q. Who would conduct the test that
you
17 are considering?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on
20 that?
21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.
22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal
57
1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to
test
2 these materials prior to using them in a context
3 that might harm humans?
4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive
5 order and would need to review it before I could
6 answer your question.
7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need
to
9 conduct an environmental impact study?
10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
11 question to the extent it requires the witness
to
12 reveal any information that would be protected
by
13 the deliberative process or any other applicable
14 privilege.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. I believe you can answer the
17 question without giving up the details that counsel
18 has enumerated.
19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
20 question.
21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going
to
22 have to reformulate the question.
58
1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
2 Q. Have there been any discussions
3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply
4 with environmental regulations by testing the
5 impact of the compound that you are spraying
in
6 Columbia?
7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of
8 clarification. The impact on the environment?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or
the
10 environment.
11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard
12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing
14 in the environment.
15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear
16 on the question.
17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point
in
18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to
do
19 any environmental impact study of this particular
20 spray compound.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive
59
1 Order 12114?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you aware of whether there
are
4 any laws in Columbia that would require an
5 environmental impact study to be done before
you
6 could spray something like the fumigant you are
7 using?
8 A. I'm not specifically aware of
any,
9 no.
10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
11 about whether the program is in compliance with
the
12 law in Columbia on that dimension?
13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that
it
14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.
15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are
using
16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca,
et
17 cetera?
18 A. It kills plants.
19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed
20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as
it is
21 killing the cocaine?
22 A. It could.
60
1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant
2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills
3 plants; is that correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. You had earlier said that the
dosage
6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms
7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,
8 correct?
9 A. I said that it is not significant
10 enough to kill humans.
11 Q. Could it injure humans?
12 A. The studies that have been done
on
13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild
eye
14 irritation that results.
15 Q. Are you aware of any other health
16 effects just from the glyphosate?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce
19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?
20 A. But it did have the surfactant
that
21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.
22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the
word?
61
1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.
2 Q. Would someone increase their chances
3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed
4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your
5 determination?
6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to
the
7 form of the question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I will be happy to try again if
you
10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.
11 A. There is a second set of studies
12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are
13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.
14 It is my understanding that those studies are
15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume
a
16 certain dosage level administered on a daily
basis.
17 Those studies with respect to
18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.
19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely
that
20 an individual would be sprayed more than once.
It
21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever
be
22 sprayed more than twice, period.
62
1 Q. But that would be a factor if
in
2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a
3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency
4 is another factor?
5 A. That's what I said.
6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or
7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers
of
8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in
9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which
it
10 should be sprayed?
11 A. I believe there are some references
12 in the guidelines.
13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what
14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very
15 high up or close to the ground?
16 A. It should be sprayed close to
the
17 ground.
18 Q. How close to the ground?
19 A. I don't remember precisely, but
the
20 guidelines say.
21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,
22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in
63
1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of
2 altitude?
3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.
4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?
5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
6 Q. The guidelines that you referred
to
7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.
8 A. As I cannot remember what the
9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond
10 to your question.
11 Q. Is it part of the direction that
the
12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance
with
13 the commercially-recommended applications of
the
14 fumigant?
15 A. We have our own guidelines.
16 Q. Are they different in terms of
the
17 altitude recommendation than the commercial
18 guidelines?
19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.
20 Q. What are the commercial --
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put
a
64
1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate
2 in it?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. Does the warning include telling
5 humans to be out of the area?
6 A. I'm not positive about that.
7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes
8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked
the
9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft
that
10 the commercial Roundup says that people should
stay
11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is
being
12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.
13 Do you have any knowledge at all
of
14 the commercial regulations?
15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it
on
16 the page.
17 Q. Page 2, the second question
18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked
at
19 the --
20 A. Okay, got it.
21 Q. Could you review both the question
22 and your response.
65
1 A. (Examining.)
2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the
3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?
4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct
in
5 quoting the Roundup web site.
6 I have never said we're using
7 Roundup, sir.
8 Q. Is it your position that it is
okay,
9 that you would not warn people to be out of the
10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant
11 that you're using in Columbia?
12 A. We do not warn people to be out
of
13 the area when we are spraying.
14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to
be
15 sprayed?
16 A. It is also a risk.
17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first
part
18 of the question, though.
19 Is it your position that it is
20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant
21 that you are using in Columbia?
22 A. As I have said earlier, there
are
66
1 testing indications that it could be mildly
2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to
be
3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's
4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the
5 health of individuals.
6 Q. You also say on that same page
that
7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct,
on
8 the level of toxicity?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Are you aware that the New York
11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against
12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe
as
13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?
14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.
15 Q. What do you base your statement
on
16 that it is as safe as table salt?
17 A. Information that has been provided
18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which
are
19 done by independent testers to determine what
the
20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So
I'm
21 looking at test results. We are looking at test
22 results.
67
1 Q. But you said the specific compound
2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;
3 is that correct?
4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of
the
5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.
6 Q. What date are you referring to?
7 A. I'm referring to the standard
tests
8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of
9 substances.
10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight
in
11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt
to
12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely
13 to be there?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you
16 providing?
17 A. The general guideline, which is
to
18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to
not
19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly
20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped
21 with coca, then it is coca.
22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written
68
1 form, or are they part of the contract?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. But you are sure that that is
one of
4 the factors in entering into this coordination
with
5 DynCorp?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves
8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying
9 humans?
10 A. I don't know that for a fact.
11 Q. Do you know if the containers
for
12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning
13 labels of any sort?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. Should they, according to your
16 understanding of the safety precautions?
17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
18 question. You're asking him should the --
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline
21 or requirement of the contract or any other
22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp
to
69
1 say that the barrel storing this material for
use
2 must have a warning label as to its possible
3 negative health effects?
4 A. I don't know.
5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.
7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
6
8 was marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you
11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the
12 study of health complaints in Columbia related
to
13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me
by
14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed
15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe
16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the
17 documents.
18 So my question is simply have
you
19 ever reviewed this particular report?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In what context?
22 A. It was information that had been
70
1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects
2 that was of interest to me. I read it.
3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you
4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans
5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are
using
6 in Columbia?
7 A. That this report did not provide
a
8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a
risk
9 to humans.
10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,
11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?
12 A. No.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another
report
14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit
7.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
7
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Have you ever seen this report
19 before?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting
it?
22 A. No.
71
1 Q. Did you have a review role?
2 A. Not in the chain of its
3 finalization, no.
4 Q. In what sense did you?
5 A. I read it in conjunction with
my
6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared.
I
7 did not personally sign off on this document
when
8 it went forward.
9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but
if
10 you take the second to last page, the second
new
11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and
risks are
12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.
13 Do you know what studies, if any,
14 that is based on?
15 A. There are, as I said earlier,
a
16 series of studies which have been done with
17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing
18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?
19 There have been other studies
which
20 use that information and other information that
21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,
22 including studies that were done by the United
72
1 Nations.
2 Q. Is it your understanding that
this
3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if
you
4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's
a
5 reference to the word "glyphosate".
6 Is it your understanding that
these
7 studies were limited to glyphosate?
8 A. And its normally included
9 surfactants.
10 Q. But not the mixture that you're
11 using in Columbia?
12 A. It did not include reference to
any
13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.
14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more
15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number
8.
16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
8
17 was marked for identification.)
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,
20 Mr. Beers?
21 A. I certainly have seen something
that
22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what
I
73
1 don't remember is a document that began with
these
2 questions. I remember a document very much like
3 this, if not the same thing, which included
4 questions and answers like these.
5 Q. The document that you're referring
6 to, was it still focused on the program in
7 Columbia?
8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the
9 Narcotics Affairs Section.
10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics
11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,
12 whether or not it was this one?
13 A. I believe the individual in question
14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.
15 Q. What is her position?
16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics
17 Affairs Section.
18 Q. Is she a scientist?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What is her background?
21 A. She's a lawyer.
22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your
74
1 background is history; is that correct?
2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.
3 But, yes, that's my academic training.
4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a
5 biologist?
6 A. I am not a scientist.
7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that
8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from
9 inhalation on humans?
10 A. Not that I remember. However
--
11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.
12 Q. The standard test?
13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye
14 irritation and a fourth category.
15 Q. What is the fourth category?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. When you say standard test though,
18 again you're referring to the tests on the
19 commercial products here in the United States?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia,
the
22 width of which you have not told me but that
we
75
1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any
2 alternative being used there to eradicate the
coca
3 plants?
4 A. No, not to my knowledge.
5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going
to
6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I
were
7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested
that
8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems
to
9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't
be
10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants
11 that they're looking for.
12 Has that option been explored
at all
13 by your bureau?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form
of
15 the question to the extent that it requires
16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected
17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication
19 in other countries. The governments, excuse
me, of
20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru
and
21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
76
1 Q. Why is it not being used in
2 Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca,
the
5 security considerations to put people on the
6 ground.
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. I would like to take about a
9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.
10 (A brief recess was taken.)
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,
13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.
14 Have you heard of any studies,
15 particularly in California, where students have
16 reported negative health effects from the spraying
17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?
18 A. No, I can't say that I have.
19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and
8,
20 the three studies that were produced by
21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with
22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed
to
77
1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking
2 you for anything, other than whether you can
tell
3 me if there are other studies that you're aware
of
4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant
that
5 you are using in Columbia?
6 A. I know of no studies that show
a
7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using
8 in Columbia.
9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other
10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8,
that
11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that
are
13 specific to that fumigant?
14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify
the
15 question, you're asking for State Department
16 information or studies that are reflected in
State
17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone
18 else?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.
20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Yes.
78
1 A. There is another study which I
have
2 not seen the final version of it -- although,
it
3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte
4 study, a different area and a larger group.
5 Q. Do you know who is conducting
that
6 study?
7 A. I believe it is the same group
of
8 people.
9 Q. That did?
10 A. The Aponte study.
11 Q. Was any study done dealing with
the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick
13 Air Force Base?
14 A. I'm not aware of one.
15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots
that
16 are operating in Columbia?
17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are
18 operating in Columbia are provided through a
19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing
and
20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program.
I
21 can't say in any individual instance who
22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.
79
1 They are all experienced pilots.
2 Q. But your wing division does some
3 training in Columbia?
4 A. Or in Patrick.
5 Q. For people that would be going
down
6 to Columbia?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. You said the Columbian government
9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if
the
10 wind was to great?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Are there any other --
13 A. Or any other reason. They could
14 stop it, period.
15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness
16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.
17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons
20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight,
other
21 than weather, by the Columbian government?
22 A. You're including wind within the
80
1 weather question?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?
5 A. The government of Columbia stopped
6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th
of
7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted
to
8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see
what
9 would happen with respect to the local campesino
10 signing up for alternative development.
11 Q. Was it resumed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware
of
14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?
15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in
16 Putumayo?
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.
18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular
81
1 spray run for any reason?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What would the reasons be that
your
4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular
5 fumigation run in Columbia?
6 A. In the judgment of the people
who
7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such
8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the
9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance
10 stopped that or for other considerations which
11 might be political.
12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you
an
13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'
14 Number 9.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
9
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a
19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who
is
20 the political director of an organization called
21 Conaie.
22 Do you know that organization?
Have
82
1 you heard of them before?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. I would direct your attention
to
4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.
5 A. (Witness complies.)
6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.
7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute
8 to read the entire document?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.
10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Have you had a chance to review
13 paragraph number five?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. In paragraph number five, the
16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy
17 objectives of the United States government.
18 And my question to you is, is
a
19 factor of your foreign policy considerations
that
20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration
21 trying to maintain good relations with the local
22 populations who are not drug traffickers and
who
83
1 are not terrorists?
2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local
3 population in Columbia?
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.
5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy
of the
6 United States to drive people away from the United
7 States.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed
10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate
11 whether there are effects that would be visible
12 that would be consistent with the claim that
the
13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent
15 that it calls for a revealing any classified
or
16 other national security protected information.
17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?
20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
84
1 Q. Are you aware of any study done
by
2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction
3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would
be
4 consistent with fumigation?
5 A. We have looked into the allegations,
6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was
7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.
8 Q. But you have said that you didn't
9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.
10 How did you accomplish that?
11 A. We know where the planes are.
12 Q. So based on your knowledge of
where
13 the planes actually flew?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. What evidence do you have of the
16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate
17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?
18 A. Almost all planes and one plane
on
19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location
20 system which tells us where the plane is.
21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit
here
22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was
85
1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border
2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question
4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any
5 classified State secret information.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position
to
7 answer that question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and
10 you're not answering because --
11 A. No, I don't know the answer to
the
12 question.
13 Q. Who would know the answer to that
14 question on your staff? Is there someone who
is
15 particularly --
16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.
17 Q. Is there one particular official
who
18 would be most likely to have that information?
19 A. I'm not sure.
20 Q. Do you have some options for me?
21 A. Mr. Etheridge.
22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that
86
1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else
have
4 anything?
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition
7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)
8 * * * * *
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
87
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein,
having
5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of
this
6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true
and
7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections,
if
8 any, shown on the attached page.
9
10
11 ________________________
12 RAND BEERS
13
14 Subscribed and sworn to before me
15 this ______day of____________, 2002.
16 __________________________________.
17
18
19
20
21
22
88
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public
5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby
6 certify:
7 That the witness whose deposition is
8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that
the
9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony
10 given by such witness.
11 I further certify that I am not related
12 to any of the parties to this action by blood
or
13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in
the
14 outcome of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set
16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.
17
18
19 __________________________
20 My Commission Expires:
21 March 31, 2005
22
36
1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?
2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
3 THE WITNESS: There is general
4 information that the BART from time to time has
5 some of its elements within Ecuador.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?
8 A. Within Sucumbios.
9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do
my
10 best.
11 A. Nor do I.
12 Q. I would like to direct your
13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.
14 It begins, "As directed by
the
15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly
with
16 the United States military," et cetera,
et cetera.
17 Who within the Bureau would be
the
18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are
19 directing DynCorp?
20 A. It would be me and through me
the
21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,
22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his
37
1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second
chain
2 of command from the embassador through the
3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.
4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in
5 Narcotics --
6 A. He is the director.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel
9 finishes his question before you answer.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. How frequent are the interactions
in
13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp
14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly
15 thing?
16 A. It is a constant relationship.
It
17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work
18 together.
19 Q. I understand the limitations on
what
20 you can say here, but what are the general issues
21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis
in
22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is
it
38
1 what to spray? What are the general issues?
2 A. Logistics.
3 Q. What do you mean by that?
4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft
5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material
6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its
7 function.
8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph
26
9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to
10 develop detailed flight plans.
11 Can you tell me how that works?
12 A. The government of Columbia with
the
13 support of the United States determines where
coca
14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic
15 precision that allows a specific field to be
16 designated as a field to be sprayed.
17 The general geographic area and
then
18 the fields themselves are determined with the
final
19 responsibility for saying that those areas may
be
20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.
21 The flight plans are then laid
out
22 for a particular day to cover the fields from
among
39
1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that
2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off
of
3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines
4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions
are
5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray
6 effectively to the target selected and only if
the
7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,
8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The
9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then
10 take off and return to base.
11 If an unusual condition results
12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot
has
13 the authority to return to base on his own
14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a
15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp
and
16 flown by the Columbian National Police.
17 Q. When you were speaking earlier
about
18 the logistics and the interaction between the
19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia
20 involved in those logistical coordination
21 activities as well?
22 A. Only insofar as it may involve
a
40
1 flight clearance to move something from point
A to
2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our
own
3 DynCorp logistical back up.
4 Q. Is a computer program prepared
based
5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the
6 spray pattern of the airplane?
7 A. There is a program set which is
used
8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.
9 Q. How is that created?
10 A. It's created in the -- as a result
11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken
from
12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every
field
13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on
that,
14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are
15 registered on that.
16 Q. Who creates the computer program
in
17 cases where there is one?
18 A. It would be a, I believe,
19 subcontractor of DynCorp.
20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.
21 Do you know the name of the
22 subcontractor?
41
1 A. I don't recall off the top of
my
2 head.
3 Q. Do you know where that computer
4 program is created physically? Is it created
in
5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United
6 States?
7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.
8 Q. Do you know the lag time between
9 gathering the information and actually having
the
10 computer program ready to be operational?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do your flight plans take account
of
13 the issue of drift?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How do they do that?
16 A. As I said earlier, they are not
17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.
18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?
19 A. Pilots can make a decision in
20 flight.
21 Q. Are you aware of any studies
22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect
42
1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used
in
2 Plan Columbia?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Are you aware that there are any
5 studies?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
was
8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first
9 began?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
is
12 being used now?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
15 A. I am not at liberty to say.
16 Q. I'm sorry?
17 A. I am not at liberty to say.
18 Q. Is that a national security secret
19 what the actual spray is?
20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
21 question on the grounds that the identity of
the
22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege
43
1 concerning another national security law
2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for
3 information submitted upon a pledge of
4 confidentiality with the government.
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection,
also
6 based on the contract.
7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to
mark
8 that one because I don't believe that you will
be
9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name
of
10 the spray being used.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. What company makes it?
17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Has the spray changed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When did it change?
44
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Why was it changed?
3 A. I'm not sure.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.
6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
5
7 was marked for identification.)
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which
is
10 a transcript of your famous appearance on
11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take
a
12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately
13 reflects what you said.
14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness
to
15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there
16 particular portions that you would like him to
look
17 at?
18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.
19 He can read the portions that he did actually
say.
20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make
21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.
22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)
45
1 Those are all my words to the best
of my
2 recollection.
3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this
5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,
6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct.
By
7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more
8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."
9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are
you
10 on?
11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the
point
12 you're making.
13 It's on page 2 of mine.
14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're
on the
15 same page, literally.
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow
17 are different. Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are
quoted
20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison,
table
21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic
as
22 glyphosate."
46
1 A. Glyphosate.
2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals
3 being sprayed in Columbia?
4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name
of
5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.
6 Q. In the next set of questions,
7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you
don't
8 claim any kind of national security privilege,
and
9 instead you answer the questions about the
10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's
what
11 it appears to be saying.
12 Am I incorrect there?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What are you intending to answer
15 there?
16 A. I'm doing two things at the same
17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,
18 and I am responding to his question about how
a
19 specific commercial vendor might set up their
own
20 guidelines.
21 Q. But you don't --
22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup
47
1 is what is being used in Columbia.
2 Q. For purposes of our going to the
3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue
4 you are claiming national security on here is
5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are
6 spraying --
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.
8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what
we
9 mean.
10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?
12 A. We are not acknowledging the name
of
13 the supplier.
14 Q. That is a national security secret?
15 A. Counsel made the objections.
16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information
17 protected by one of the governmental privileges
18 including information submitted to the government
19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the
law
20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national
21 security privilege.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
48
1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate
is
2 one of the chemicals?
3 A. We can certainly talk about
4 glyphosate.
5 Q. Are there any other chemicals
that
6 are added to the mixture that is being used in
Plan
7 Columbia besides glyphosate?
8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate
as the
9 generic active agent that is used to actually
10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals
11 which are included, and they are called
12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the
13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough
to
14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like
15 baby shampoo.
16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that
17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture
20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Is another one something called
49
1 Poea, P-o-e-a?
2 A. I believe that is the correct
name.
3 Q. What is the difference, as you
sit
4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?
5 A. They're produced by different
6 manufacturers.
7 Q. But they do the same thing?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which of them is being used in
Plan
10 Columbia?
11 A. Both.
12 Q. Together?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why would you need two of them?
15 A. Because in the commercially
16 available mixture which we purchase, the second
of
17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient
of the
18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux
19 in addition to that to have an additional
20 surfactant effect.
21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you
are
22 adding manufactured?
50
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Do you know the name of the company
3 that manufacturers it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Has the company that is supplying
6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan
7 Columbia, has the company changed from the
8 beginning of the program until now?
9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Let me direct your attention to
13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,
14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at
certain
15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture
16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying
to
17 say is that the levels that we apply are well
below
18 any of those levels."
19 Did you, in fact, say that?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors
22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain
51
1 dosage level would kill someone?
2 A. The science, as I understand it,
is
3 that the dosage level would have to be a
4 considerable degree greater than the very small
5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow
6 to land on an individual.
7 The actual mixture of either
8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on
an
9 individual, a naked person of approximately
10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never
11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams
of
12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus
13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining
2
14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.
15 That's hardly anything,
16 approximating what the standard tests have
17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate
18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United
19 States and testing would be.
20 Q. Is there any process under which
21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,
22 the content of it?
52
1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the
form
2 of that. It's unclear to me.
3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll
try
5 again.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and
8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical
9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of
10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on
what
11 it is made of?
12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that
14 products which are manufactured and sold in the
15 United States are tested regularly. That's the
16 test data we have.
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in
the
19 United States the exact same chemical formulation
20 with the addition of these two surfactants that
21 you've described in testing it?
22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within
the
53
1 United States.
2 Q. When you say that the people who
are
3 testing it in the United States, that would be
4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is
the
5 same, right?
6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
7 question.
8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Everyone objected to the form
of the
11 question, but the issue is whether you understood
12 the question.
13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.
15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the
16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in
the
17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the
18 matter at hand.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Why is that?
21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm
22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'
54
1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a
bit
2 far afield from what he was supposed to be
3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving
4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.
5 But my understanding of his authorization and
the
6 request for his testimony today really concerns
the
7 policy position of the State Department and various
8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on
9 national security and other concerns that are
10 described in the Declaration rather than the
11 science or the health effects, for the most part,
12 of the herbicide.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct
14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'
15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions
16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern
for
17 human health. I believe that my questions are
18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few
19 more which I would like to complete.
20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
21 Q. You were beginning to explain
to me
22 the relevance of the testing that is done on
one
55
1 compound to the actual health effects of the
2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.
3 Why did you say that it was
4 relevant?
5 A. When you get to the actual mixture
6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when
it
7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest
8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate
and
9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate
10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk
of
11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual
out
12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.
13 We have, because it is not sold
in
14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the
15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis
by
16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking
at
17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux
as
18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United
19 States.
20 That, in combination with the
21 testing against the commercially available products
22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us
the
56
1 view that is contained in the statement.
2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually
3 tested on humans the specific compounds together
4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?
5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no
one
6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or
7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.
8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific
9 tests done on animals to test the effects of
the
10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed
in
11 Plan Columbia?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Are there any plans to do such
a
14 test?
15 A. We are considering the possibility.
16 Q. Who would conduct the test that
you
17 are considering?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on
20 that?
21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.
22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal
57
1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to
test
2 these materials prior to using them in a context
3 that might harm humans?
4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive
5 order and would need to review it before I could
6 answer your question.
7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need
to
9 conduct an environmental impact study?
10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
11 question to the extent it requires the witness
to
12 reveal any information that would be protected
by
13 the deliberative process or any other applicable
14 privilege.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. I believe you can answer the
17 question without giving up the details that counsel
18 has enumerated.
19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
20 question.
21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going
to
22 have to reformulate the question.
58
1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
2 Q. Have there been any discussions
3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply
4 with environmental regulations by testing the
5 impact of the compound that you are spraying
in
6 Columbia?
7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of
8 clarification. The impact on the environment?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or
the
10 environment.
11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard
12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing
14 in the environment.
15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear
16 on the question.
17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point
in
18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to
do
19 any environmental impact study of this particular
20 spray compound.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive
59
1 Order 12114?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you aware of whether there
are
4 any laws in Columbia that would require an
5 environmental impact study to be done before
you
6 could spray something like the fumigant you are
7 using?
8 A. I'm not specifically aware of
any,
9 no.
10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
11 about whether the program is in compliance with
the
12 law in Columbia on that dimension?
13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that
it
14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.
15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are
using
16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca,
et
17 cetera?
18 A. It kills plants.
19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed
20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as
it is
21 killing the cocaine?
22 A. It could.
60
1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant
2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills
3 plants; is that correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. You had earlier said that the
dosage
6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms
7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,
8 correct?
9 A. I said that it is not significant
10 enough to kill humans.
11 Q. Could it injure humans?
12 A. The studies that have been done
on
13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild
eye
14 irritation that results.
15 Q. Are you aware of any other health
16 effects just from the glyphosate?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce
19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?
20 A. But it did have the surfactant
that
21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.
22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the
word?
61
1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.
2 Q. Would someone increase their chances
3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed
4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your
5 determination?
6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to
the
7 form of the question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I will be happy to try again if
you
10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.
11 A. There is a second set of studies
12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are
13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.
14 It is my understanding that those studies are
15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume
a
16 certain dosage level administered on a daily
basis.
17 Those studies with respect to
18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.
19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely
that
20 an individual would be sprayed more than once.
It
21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever
be
22 sprayed more than twice, period.
62
1 Q. But that would be a factor if
in
2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a
3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency
4 is another factor?
5 A. That's what I said.
6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or
7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers
of
8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in
9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which
it
10 should be sprayed?
11 A. I believe there are some references
12 in the guidelines.
13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what
14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very
15 high up or close to the ground?
16 A. It should be sprayed close to
the
17 ground.
18 Q. How close to the ground?
19 A. I don't remember precisely, but
the
20 guidelines say.
21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,
22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in
63
1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of
2 altitude?
3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.
4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?
5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
6 Q. The guidelines that you referred
to
7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.
8 A. As I cannot remember what the
9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond
10 to your question.
11 Q. Is it part of the direction that
the
12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance
with
13 the commercially-recommended applications of
the
14 fumigant?
15 A. We have our own guidelines.
16 Q. Are they different in terms of
the
17 altitude recommendation than the commercial
18 guidelines?
19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.
20 Q. What are the commercial --
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put
a
64
1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate
2 in it?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. Does the warning include telling
5 humans to be out of the area?
6 A. I'm not positive about that.
7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes
8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked
the
9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft
that
10 the commercial Roundup says that people should
stay
11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is
being
12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.
13 Do you have any knowledge at all
of
14 the commercial regulations?
15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it
on
16 the page.
17 Q. Page 2, the second question
18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked
at
19 the --
20 A. Okay, got it.
21 Q. Could you review both the question
22 and your response.
65
1 A. (Examining.)
2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the
3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?
4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct
in
5 quoting the Roundup web site.
6 I have never said we're using
7 Roundup, sir.
8 Q. Is it your position that it is
okay,
9 that you would not warn people to be out of the
10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant
11 that you're using in Columbia?
12 A. We do not warn people to be out
of
13 the area when we are spraying.
14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to
be
15 sprayed?
16 A. It is also a risk.
17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first
part
18 of the question, though.
19 Is it your position that it is
20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant
21 that you are using in Columbia?
22 A. As I have said earlier, there
are
66
1 testing indications that it could be mildly
2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to
be
3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's
4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the
5 health of individuals.
6 Q. You also say on that same page
that
7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct,
on
8 the level of toxicity?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Are you aware that the New York
11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against
12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe
as
13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?
14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.
15 Q. What do you base your statement
on
16 that it is as safe as table salt?
17 A. Information that has been provided
18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which
are
19 done by independent testers to determine what
the
20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So
I'm
21 looking at test results. We are looking at test
22 results.
67
1 Q. But you said the specific compound
2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;
3 is that correct?
4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of
the
5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.
6 Q. What date are you referring to?
7 A. I'm referring to the standard
tests
8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of
9 substances.
10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight
in
11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt
to
12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely
13 to be there?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you
16 providing?
17 A. The general guideline, which is
to
18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to
not
19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly
20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped
21 with coca, then it is coca.
22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written
68
1 form, or are they part of the contract?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. But you are sure that that is
one of
4 the factors in entering into this coordination
with
5 DynCorp?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves
8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying
9 humans?
10 A. I don't know that for a fact.
11 Q. Do you know if the containers
for
12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning
13 labels of any sort?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. Should they, according to your
16 understanding of the safety precautions?
17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
18 question. You're asking him should the --
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline
21 or requirement of the contract or any other
22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp
to
69
1 say that the barrel storing this material for
use
2 must have a warning label as to its possible
3 negative health effects?
4 A. I don't know.
5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.
7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
6
8 was marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you
11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the
12 study of health complaints in Columbia related
to
13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me
by
14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed
15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe
16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the
17 documents.
18 So my question is simply have
you
19 ever reviewed this particular report?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In what context?
22 A. It was information that had been
70
1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects
2 that was of interest to me. I read it.
3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you
4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans
5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are
using
6 in Columbia?
7 A. That this report did not provide
a
8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a
risk
9 to humans.
10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,
11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?
12 A. No.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another
report
14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit
7.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
7
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Have you ever seen this report
19 before?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting
it?
22 A. No.
71
1 Q. Did you have a review role?
2 A. Not in the chain of its
3 finalization, no.
4 Q. In what sense did you?
5 A. I read it in conjunction with
my
6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared.
I
7 did not personally sign off on this document
when
8 it went forward.
9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but
if
10 you take the second to last page, the second
new
11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and
risks are
12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.
13 Do you know what studies, if any,
14 that is based on?
15 A. There are, as I said earlier,
a
16 series of studies which have been done with
17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing
18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?
19 There have been other studies
which
20 use that information and other information that
21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,
22 including studies that were done by the United
72
1 Nations.
2 Q. Is it your understanding that
this
3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if
you
4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's
a
5 reference to the word "glyphosate".
6 Is it your understanding that
these
7 studies were limited to glyphosate?
8 A. And its normally included
9 surfactants.
10 Q. But not the mixture that you're
11 using in Columbia?
12 A. It did not include reference to
any
13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.
14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more
15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number
8.
16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
8
17 was marked for identification.)
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,
20 Mr. Beers?
21 A. I certainly have seen something
that
22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what
I
73
1 don't remember is a document that began with
these
2 questions. I remember a document very much like
3 this, if not the same thing, which included
4 questions and answers like these.
5 Q. The document that you're referring
6 to, was it still focused on the program in
7 Columbia?
8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the
9 Narcotics Affairs Section.
10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics
11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,
12 whether or not it was this one?
13 A. I believe the individual in question
14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.
15 Q. What is her position?
16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics
17 Affairs Section.
18 Q. Is she a scientist?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What is her background?
21 A. She's a lawyer.
22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your
74
1 background is history; is that correct?
2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.
3 But, yes, that's my academic training.
4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a
5 biologist?
6 A. I am not a scientist.
7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that
8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from
9 inhalation on humans?
10 A. Not that I remember. However
--
11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.
12 Q. The standard test?
13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye
14 irritation and a fourth category.
15 Q. What is the fourth category?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. When you say standard test though,
18 again you're referring to the tests on the
19 commercial products here in the United States?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia,
the
22 width of which you have not told me but that
we
75
1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any
2 alternative being used there to eradicate the
coca
3 plants?
4 A. No, not to my knowledge.
5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going
to
6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I
were
7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested
that
8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems
to
9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't
be
10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants
11 that they're looking for.
12 Has that option been explored
at all
13 by your bureau?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form
of
15 the question to the extent that it requires
16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected
17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication
19 in other countries. The governments, excuse
me, of
20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru
and
21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
76
1 Q. Why is it not being used in
2 Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca,
the
5 security considerations to put people on the
6 ground.
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. I would like to take about a
9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.
10 (A brief recess was taken.)
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,
13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.
14 Have you heard of any studies,
15 particularly in California, where students have
16 reported negative health effects from the spraying
17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?
18 A. No, I can't say that I have.
19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and
8,
20 the three studies that were produced by
21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with
22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed
to
77
1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking
2 you for anything, other than whether you can
tell
3 me if there are other studies that you're aware
of
4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant
that
5 you are using in Columbia?
6 A. I know of no studies that show
a
7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using
8 in Columbia.
9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other
10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8,
that
11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that
are
13 specific to that fumigant?
14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify
the
15 question, you're asking for State Department
16 information or studies that are reflected in
State
17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone
18 else?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.
20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Yes.
78
1 A. There is another study which I
have
2 not seen the final version of it -- although,
it
3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte
4 study, a different area and a larger group.
5 Q. Do you know who is conducting
that
6 study?
7 A. I believe it is the same group
of
8 people.
9 Q. That did?
10 A. The Aponte study.
11 Q. Was any study done dealing with
the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick
13 Air Force Base?
14 A. I'm not aware of one.
15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots
that
16 are operating in Columbia?
17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are
18 operating in Columbia are provided through a
19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing
and
20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program.
I
21 can't say in any individual instance who
22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.
79
1 They are all experienced pilots.
2 Q. But your wing division does some
3 training in Columbia?
4 A. Or in Patrick.
5 Q. For people that would be going
down
6 to Columbia?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. You said the Columbian government
9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if
the
10 wind was to great?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Are there any other --
13 A. Or any other reason. They could
14 stop it, period.
15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness
16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.
17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons
20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight,
other
21 than weather, by the Columbian government?
22 A. You're including wind within the
80
1 weather question?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?
5 A. The government of Columbia stopped
6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th
of
7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted
to
8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see
what
9 would happen with respect to the local campesino
10 signing up for alternative development.
11 Q. Was it resumed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware
of
14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?
15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in
16 Putumayo?
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.
18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular
81
1 spray run for any reason?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What would the reasons be that
your
4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular
5 fumigation run in Columbia?
6 A. In the judgment of the people
who
7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such
8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the
9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance
10 stopped that or for other considerations which
11 might be political.
12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you
an
13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'
14 Number 9.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
9
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a
19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who
is
20 the political director of an organization called
21 Conaie.
22 Do you know that organization?
Have
82
1 you heard of them before?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. I would direct your attention
to
4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.
5 A. (Witness complies.)
6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.
7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute
8 to read the entire document?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.
10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Have you had a chance to review
13 paragraph number five?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. In paragraph number five, the
16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy
17 objectives of the United States government.
18 And my question to you is, is
a
19 factor of your foreign policy considerations
that
20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration
21 trying to maintain good relations with the local
22 populations who are not drug traffickers and
who
83
1 are not terrorists?
2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local
3 population in Columbia?
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.
5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy
of the
6 United States to drive people away from the United
7 States.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed
10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate
11 whether there are effects that would be visible
12 that would be consistent with the claim that
the
13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent
15 that it calls for a revealing any classified
or
16 other national security protected information.
17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?
20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
84
1 Q. Are you aware of any study done
by
2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction
3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would
be
4 consistent with fumigation?
5 A. We have looked into the allegations,
6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was
7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.
8 Q. But you have said that you didn't
9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.
10 How did you accomplish that?
11 A. We know where the planes are.
12 Q. So based on your knowledge of
where
13 the planes actually flew?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. What evidence do you have of the
16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate
17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?
18 A. Almost all planes and one plane
on
19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location
20 system which tells us where the plane is.
21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit
here
22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was
85
1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border
2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question
4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any
5 classified State secret information.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position
to
7 answer that question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and
10 you're not answering because --
11 A. No, I don't know the answer to
the
12 question.
13 Q. Who would know the answer to that
14 question on your staff? Is there someone who
is
15 particularly --
16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.
17 Q. Is there one particular official
who
18 would be most likely to have that information?
19 A. I'm not sure.
20 Q. Do you have some options for me?
21 A. Mr. Etheridge.
22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that
86
1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else
have
4 anything?
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition
7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)
8 * * * * *
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
87
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein,
having
5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of
this
6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true
and
7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections,
if
8 any, shown on the attached page.
9
10
11 ________________________
12 RAND BEERS
13
14 Subscribed and sworn to before me
15 this ______day of____________, 2002.
16 __________________________________.
17
18
19
20
21
22
88
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public
5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby
6 certify:
7 That the witness whose deposition is
8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that
the
9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony
10 given by such witness.
11 I further certify that I am not related
12 to any of the parties to this action by blood
or
13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in
the
14 outcome of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set
16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.
17
18
19 __________________________
20 My Commission Expires:
21 March 31, 2005
22
36
1 be hiding or based in Sucumbios, Ecuador?
2 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
3 THE WITNESS: There is general
4 information that the BART from time to time has
5 some of its elements within Ecuador.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. Within Sucumbios, Ecuador?
8 A. Within Sucumbios.
9 Q. I don't speak Spanish. I'll do
my
10 best.
11 A. Nor do I.
12 Q. I would like to direct your
13 attention to paragraph 25 of your Declaration.
14 It begins, "As directed by
the
15 bureau, DynCorp International works directly
with
16 the United States military," et cetera,
et cetera.
17 Who within the Bureau would be
the
18 person you're referring to, or persons, who are
19 directing DynCorp?
20 A. It would be me and through me
the
21 office director of the State Department Air Wing,
22 Mr. John McLaughlin, and through him his
37
1 representatives in Columbia, and in a second
chain
2 of command from the embassador through the
3 Narcotics Affairs Section within Columbia.
4 Q. Mr. Baca, does he work in
5 Narcotics --
6 A. He is the director.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. RIVERA: Make sure that counsel
9 finishes his question before you answer.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. How frequent are the interactions
in
13 that chain you have just described between DynCorp
14 and the bureau? Is it a daily thing or a weekly
15 thing?
16 A. It is a constant relationship.
It
17 is daily and hour to hour. They live and work
18 together.
19 Q. I understand the limitations on
what
20 you can say here, but what are the general issues
21 that are being worked out on a day-to-day basis
in
22 this relationship? Is it where to spray? Is
it
38
1 what to spray? What are the general issues?
2 A. Logistics.
3 Q. What do you mean by that?
4 A. I mean the support for the aircraft
5 and associated material, gasoline, spray material
6 that are necessary for DynCorp to carry out its
7 function.
8 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph
26
9 of your Declaration, you describe a process to
10 develop detailed flight plans.
11 Can you tell me how that works?
12 A. The government of Columbia with
the
13 support of the United States determines where
coca
14 cultivation exists with a degree of geographic
15 precision that allows a specific field to be
16 designated as a field to be sprayed.
17 The general geographic area and
then
18 the fields themselves are determined with the
final
19 responsibility for saying that those areas may
be
20 sprayed residing with the government of Columbia.
21 The flight plans are then laid
out
22 for a particular day to cover the fields from
among
39
1 the list of fields which will be sprayed on that
2 day and by that flight. Prior to the take off
of
3 the aircraft, the government of Columbia determines
4 whether or not the weather or wind conditions
are
5 appropriate to being able to deliver the spray
6 effectively to the target selected and only if
the
7 weather and wind are appropriate, it's not raining,
8 the wind is not above a certain velocity. The
9 aircraft are authorized to take off. They then
10 take off and return to base.
11 If an unusual condition results
12 during the course of the flight, then the pilot
has
13 the authority to return to base on his own
14 recognizance. The planes that fly are a
15 combination of planes that are flown by DynCorp
and
16 flown by the Columbian National Police.
17 Q. When you were speaking earlier
about
18 the logistics and the interaction between the
19 bureau and DynCorp, is the government of Columbia
20 involved in those logistical coordination
21 activities as well?
22 A. Only insofar as it may involve
a
40
1 flight clearance to move something from point
A to
2 point B. We are responsible for supplying our
own
3 DynCorp logistical back up.
4 Q. Is a computer program prepared
based
5 on the aerial intelligence that is guiding the
6 spray pattern of the airplane?
7 A. There is a program set which is
used
8 to guide it, yes, that's correct.
9 Q. How is that created?
10 A. It's created in the -- as a result
11 of some multispectral imagery, which is taken
from
12 an aircraft which is flown by us. Not every
field
13 which is sprayed is necessarily registered on
that,
14 but most of the fields which are sprayed are
15 registered on that.
16 Q. Who creates the computer program
in
17 cases where there is one?
18 A. It would be a, I believe,
19 subcontractor of DynCorp.
20 Q. A subcontractor of DynCorp.
21 Do you know the name of the
22 subcontractor?
41
1 A. I don't recall off the top of
my
2 head.
3 Q. Do you know where that computer
4 program is created physically? Is it created
in
5 Columbia, or is it created somewhere in the United
6 States?
7 A. I believe it's in Columbia.
8 Q. Do you know the lag time between
9 gathering the information and actually having
the
10 computer program ready to be operational?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do your flight plans take account
of
13 the issue of drift?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How do they do that?
16 A. As I said earlier, they are not
17 allowed to fly if the wind is too great.
18 Q. Is that the only precaution taken?
19 A. Pilots can make a decision in
20 flight.
21 Q. Are you aware of any studies
22 conducted regarding the issue of drift with respect
42
1 to Roundup, the fumigant base that is being used
in
2 Plan Columbia?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Are you aware that there are any
5 studies?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
was
8 initially being used when Plan Columbia first
9 began?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know what kind of spray
is
12 being used now?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
15 A. I am not at liberty to say.
16 Q. I'm sorry?
17 A. I am not at liberty to say.
18 Q. Is that a national security secret
19 what the actual spray is?
20 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
21 question on the grounds that the identity of
the
22 particular spray would be protected by a privilege
43
1 concerning another national security law
2 enforcement privilege or the privilege for
3 information submitted upon a pledge of
4 confidentiality with the government.
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection,
also
6 based on the contract.
7 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We're going to
mark
8 that one because I don't believe that you will
be
9 able to keep us from knowing what is the name
of
10 the spray being used.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Is it a derivative of Roundup?
13 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
14 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. What company makes it?
17 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
18 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Has the spray changed?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When did it change?
44
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Why was it changed?
3 A. I'm not sure.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
5 Plaintiffs' Number 5.
6 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
5
7 was marked for identification.)
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I've handed you Exhibit 5, which
is
10 a transcript of your famous appearance on
11 60 Minutes. I'm wondering if you could take
a
12 moment to review that and tell me if it accurately
13 reflects what you said.
14 MR. RIVERA: Do you want the witness
to
15 read the entirety of the transcript, or are there
16 particular portions that you would like him to
look
17 at?
18 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: It's not that long.
19 He can read the portions that he did actually
say.
20 MR. RIVERA: Read through it and make
21 sure you're comfortable with what you have read.
22 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.)
45
1 Those are all my words to the best
of my
2 recollection.
3 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
4 Q. Mr. Beers, on page 3 of this
5 document near the top, it's your first appearance,
6 I think, Mr. Rand Beers: "That's correct.
By
7 comparison, table salt and baby shampoo are more
8 toxic or as toxic as glyphosate."
9 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, what page are
you
10 on?
11 THE WITNESS: We haven't found the
point
12 you're making.
13 It's on page 2 of mine.
14 MR. RIVERA: Let's make sure we're
on the
15 same page, literally.
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes, my pages somehow
17 are different. Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. On page 2 at the top, you are
quoted
20 as saying, "That's correct. By comparison,
table
21 salt and baby shampoo are more toxic or as toxic
as
22 glyphosate."
46
1 A. Glyphosate.
2 Q. Is glyphosate one of the chemicals
3 being sprayed in Columbia?
4 A. Glyphosate is the generic name
of
5 the chemicals that are being sprayed in Columbia.
6 Q. In the next set of questions,
7 Mr. Croft asks you about Roundup. There, you
don't
8 claim any kind of national security privilege,
and
9 instead you answer the questions about the
10 commercial applicability of Roundup. That's
what
11 it appears to be saying.
12 Am I incorrect there?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What are you intending to answer
15 there?
16 A. I'm doing two things at the same
17 time. I am talking about glyphosate, the generic,
18 and I am responding to his question about how
a
19 specific commercial vendor might set up their
own
20 guidelines.
21 Q. But you don't --
22 A. But I am not confirming that Roundup
47
1 is what is being used in Columbia.
2 Q. For purposes of our going to the
3 court and trying to get a court order, the issue
4 you are claiming national security on here is
5 whether or not this glyphosate that you are
6 spraying --
7 MR. GALLAGHER: Glyphosate.
8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: We all know what
we
9 mean.
10 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
11 Q. -- is in fact Roundup?
12 A. We are not acknowledging the name
of
13 the supplier.
14 Q. That is a national security secret?
15 A. Counsel made the objections.
16 MR. RIVERA: Again, it's information
17 protected by one of the governmental privileges
18 including information submitted to the government
19 on a pledge of confidentiality, as well as the
law
20 enforcement privilege and possibility the national
21 security privilege.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
48
1 Q. But we can say that glyphosate
is
2 one of the chemicals?
3 A. We can certainly talk about
4 glyphosate.
5 Q. Are there any other chemicals
that
6 are added to the mixture that is being used in
Plan
7 Columbia besides glyphosate?
8 A. When one speaks of glyphosate
as the
9 generic active agent that is used to actually
10 affect the plan, there are another set of chemicals
11 which are included, and they are called
12 surfactants. Their purpose is to allow the
13 glyphosate to remain on the leave long enough
to
14 have its active effect on the plant. It is like
15 baby shampoo.
16 Q. Is one of the ingredients that
17 you're describing called Cosmo-Flux?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Is Cosmo-Flux part of the mixture
20 that is being used in Plan Columbia?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Is another one something called
49
1 Poea, P-o-e-a?
2 A. I believe that is the correct
name.
3 Q. What is the difference, as you
sit
4 here, between Cosmo-Flux and Poea?
5 A. They're produced by different
6 manufacturers.
7 Q. But they do the same thing?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which of them is being used in
Plan
10 Columbia?
11 A. Both.
12 Q. Together?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why would you need two of them?
15 A. Because in the commercially
16 available mixture which we purchase, the second
of
17 the two surfactants is already an ingredient
of the
18 mixture which we purchase. We add the Cosmo-Flux
19 in addition to that to have an additional
20 surfactant effect.
21 Q. Where is the Cosmo-Flux that you
are
22 adding manufactured?
50
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Do you know the name of the company
3 that manufacturers it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Has the company that is supplying
6 it, the Cosmo-Flux that is being used in Plan
7 Columbia, has the company changed from the
8 beginning of the program until now?
9 A. That supplies the Cosmo-Flux?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Let me direct your attention to
13 page 3. About halfway down the page it says,
14 Mr. Beers: "There is no question that at
certain
15 dosage levels, glyphosate or the commercial mixture
16 can injure people or kill them. What I'm trying
to
17 say is that the levels that we apply are well
below
18 any of those levels."
19 Did you, in fact, say that?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. What are the dimensions or factors
22 in your mind that would determine whether a certain
51
1 dosage level would kill someone?
2 A. The science, as I understand it,
is
3 that the dosage level would have to be a
4 considerable degree greater than the very small
5 amount of dosage that a single flight would allow
6 to land on an individual.
7 The actual mixture of either
8 glyphosate or surfactant which would fall on
an
9 individual, a naked person of approximately
10 150 pounds standing in a field, which would never
11 happen, would have approximately 12 milligrams
of
12 the total amount of substance. Nine plus
13 milligrams would be glyphosate, the remaining
2
14 plus milligrams would be surfactant.
15 That's hardly anything,
16 approximating what the standard tests have
17 suggested would be the dosage level for glyphosate
18 and its surfactant as manufactured in the United
19 States and testing would be.
20 Q. Is there any process under which
21 someone is testing what is actually being sprayed,
22 the content of it?
52
1 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: I object to the
form
2 of that. It's unclear to me.
3 THE WITNESS: Nor me.
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm sorry, I'll
try
5 again.
6 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
7 Q. You're getting this fumigant and
8 spraying it. Is anyone testing the actual chemical
9 compound that is being sprayed on some sort of
10 random basis to make sure that we're clear on
what
11 it is made of?
12 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Same objection.
13 THE WITNESS: I have indicated that
14 products which are manufactured and sold in the
15 United States are tested regularly. That's the
16 test data we have.
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Is anyone using commercially in
the
19 United States the exact same chemical formulation
20 with the addition of these two surfactants that
21 you've described in testing it?
22 A. Cosmo-Flux is not sold within
the
53
1 United States.
2 Q. When you say that the people who
are
3 testing it in the United States, that would be
4 irrelevant to whether the chemical as used is
the
5 same, right?
6 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
7 question.
8 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Objection.
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Everyone objected to the form
of the
11 question, but the issue is whether you understood
12 the question.
13 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
14 question, you may answer subject to the objection.
15 THE WITNESS: As to the matter of the
16 irrelevance of the test that has been done in
the
17 United States, I believe it is relevant to the
18 matter at hand.
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Why is that?
21 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, Counsel. I'm
22 going back and flipping through Mr. Beers'
54
1 Declaration, and it seems that we're going a
bit
2 far afield from what he was supposed to be
3 testifying to today. Obviously, we've been giving
4 some latitude to talk somewhat about the herbicide.
5 But my understanding of his authorization and
the
6 request for his testimony today really concerns
the
7 policy position of the State Department and various
8 aspects of the impact of this litigation on
9 national security and other concerns that are
10 described in the Declaration rather than the
11 science or the health effects, for the most part,
12 of the herbicide.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm going to direct
14 you to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Mr. Beers'
15 Declaration, both of which involve his assertions
16 that there are no grounds to suggest concern
for
17 human health. I believe that my questions are
18 extremely relevant there, and I have just a few
19 more which I would like to complete.
20 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
21 Q. You were beginning to explain
to me
22 the relevance of the testing that is done on
one
55
1 compound to the actual health effects of the
2 compound being used in Columbia which is different.
3 Why did you say that it was
4 relevant?
5 A. When you get to the actual mixture
6 that is being sprayed in Columbia, that is when
it
7 is mixed with the water, which is the largest
8 single content of the mixture, the glyphosate
and
9 the surfactant that comes with the glyphosate
10 represent a certain proportion which is the bulk
of
11 the combination, and 1 percent of the actual
out
12 the nozzle of the spray is Cosmo-Flux.
13 We have, because it is not sold
in
14 the United States, asked EPA to look at the
15 ingredients as provided on a proprietary basis
by
16 the manufacturer. And EPA has, after looking
at
17 the contents, judged the contents of Cosmo-Flux
as
18 safe to be sprayed on food crops in the United
19 States.
20 That, in combination with the
21 testing against the commercially available products
22 which are comparable to what we use, gives us
the
56
1 view that is contained in the statement.
2 Q. Is it true that no one has actually
3 tested on humans the specific compounds together
4 that are being used in Plan Columbia?
5 A. To the best of my knowledge, no
one
6 tests on humans or any of the herbicides or
7 pesticides. They are all done on animals.
8 Q. Are you aware of any scientific
9 tests done on animals to test the effects of
the
10 specific combination of compounds being sprayed
in
11 Plan Columbia?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Are there any plans to do such
a
14 test?
15 A. We are considering the possibility.
16 Q. Who would conduct the test that
you
17 are considering?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Are you working with the EPA on
20 that?
21 A. The EPA would certainly be involved.
22 Q. Are you familiar with any legal
57
1 requirement under the Executive Order 12114 to
test
2 these materials prior to using them in a context
3 that might harm humans?
4 A. I'm not familiar with that executive
5 order and would need to review it before I could
6 answer your question.
7 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
8 that have occurred in your bureau about the need
to
9 conduct an environmental impact study?
10 MR. RIVERA: I'm going to object to
the
11 question to the extent it requires the witness
to
12 reveal any information that would be protected
by
13 the deliberative process or any other applicable
14 privilege.
15 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
16 Q. I believe you can answer the
17 question without giving up the details that counsel
18 has enumerated.
19 MR. RIVERA: If you understand the
20 question.
21 THE WITNESS: I guess you're going
to
22 have to reformulate the question.
58
1 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
2 Q. Have there been any discussions
3 inside your bureau regarding the need to comply
4 with environmental regulations by testing the
5 impact of the compound that you are spraying
in
6 Columbia?
7 MR. RIVERA: Just a question of
8 clarification. The impact on the environment?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No. Humans or
the
10 environment.
11 MR. RIVERA: I thought I heard
12 environment somewhere in your qualifications.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Humans are existing
14 in the environment.
15 MR. RIVERA: That's helpful to be clear
16 on the question.
17 THE WITNESS: At this particular point
in
18 time, I am not aware of any specific plans to
do
19 any environmental impact study of this particular
20 spray compound.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. You're not familiar with Executive
59
1 Order 12114?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you aware of whether there
are
4 any laws in Columbia that would require an
5 environmental impact study to be done before
you
6 could spray something like the fumigant you are
7 using?
8 A. I'm not specifically aware of
any,
9 no.
10 Q. Are you aware of any discussions
11 about whether the program is in compliance with
the
12 law in Columbia on that dimension?
13 A. Yes. It is my understanding that
it
14 is in compliance with the law in Columbia.
15 Q. Does the fumigant that you are
using
16 in Columbia kill food crops like corn, yucca,
et
17 cetera?
18 A. It kills plants.
19 Q. So if a farmer's plants were sprayed
20 by this fumigant, it would kill them, just as
it is
21 killing the cocaine?
22 A. It could.
60
1 Q. There is no way that this fumigant
2 distinguishes between cocaine and corn. It kills
3 plants; is that correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. You had earlier said that the
dosage
6 is low enough that it cannot hurt humans in terms
7 of the spray that you are using in Columbia,
8 correct?
9 A. I said that it is not significant
10 enough to kill humans.
11 Q. Could it injure humans?
12 A. The studies that have been done
on
13 glyphosate have suggested that there is a mild
eye
14 irritation that results.
15 Q. Are you aware of any other health
16 effects just from the glyphosate?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Again, that study did not introduce
19 the Cosmo-Flux; is that correct?
20 A. But it did have the surfactant
that
21 is part of the glyphosate mixture.
22 Q. Which surfactant, what is the
word?
61
1 A. The other one, the Bpoe.
2 Q. Would someone increase their chances
3 of suffering an injury if they are sprayed
4 frequently? Is frequency a factor in your
5 determination?
6 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, I object to
the
7 form of the question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. I will be happy to try again if
you
10 don't understand it, Mr. Beers.
11 A. There is a second set of studies
12 that are done on most herbicides, and they are
13 exposure -- prolonged exposure to the substance.
14 It is my understanding that those studies are
15 conducted over a 90-day period, and they presume
a
16 certain dosage level administered on a daily
basis.
17 Those studies with respect to
18 glyphosate do not suggest a long-term effect.
19 However, and more importantly, it is unlikely
that
20 an individual would be sprayed more than once.
It
21 is highly unlikely that an individual would ever
be
22 sprayed more than twice, period.
62
1 Q. But that would be a factor if
in
2 fact they were? In increasing the risk to a
3 person, the dosage is one factor, but the frequency
4 is another factor?
5 A. That's what I said.
6 Q. Are you aware of any rules or
7 recommendations by the commercial manufacturers
of
8 this kind of fumigant that you are using in
9 Columbia dealing with the altitude from which
it
10 should be sprayed?
11 A. I believe there are some references
12 in the guidelines.
13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what
14 those guidelines are? Should it be sprayed very
15 high up or close to the ground?
16 A. It should be sprayed close to
the
17 ground.
18 Q. How close to the ground?
19 A. I don't remember precisely, but
the
20 guidelines say.
21 Q. Do you believe, as you sit here,
22 that the DynCorp program in Columbia is in
63
1 compliance with those guidelines in terms of
2 altitude?
3 MR. RIVERA: Object to the question.
4 Could you clarify, whose guidelines?
5 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
6 Q. The guidelines that you referred
to
7 that the commercial manufacturers recommend.
8 A. As I cannot remember what the
9 commercial guidelines are, I'm at odds to respond
10 to your question.
11 Q. Is it part of the direction that
the
12 bureau is giving DynCorp to be in compliance
with
13 the commercially-recommended applications of
the
14 fumigant?
15 A. We have our own guidelines.
16 Q. Are they different in terms of
the
17 altitude recommendation than the commercial
18 guidelines?
19 A. Our guidelines are 50 to 150 feet.
20 Q. What are the commercial --
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Do the commercial vendors put
a
64
1 warning label on the fumigant if it has glyphosate
2 in it?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. Does the warning include telling
5 humans to be out of the area?
6 A. I'm not positive about that.
7 Q. Let's go back to your 60 Minutes
8 transcript, page 2. You are specifically asked
the
9 question near the top of the page by Mr. Croft
that
10 the commercial Roundup says that people should
stay
11 out of area, as well as pets, if the area is
being
12 sprayed, and you respond to the question.
13 Do you have any knowledge at all
of
14 the commercial regulations?
15 A. I'm sorry, I still don't see it
on
16 the page.
17 Q. Page 2, the second question
18 Mr. Croft asks you, it begins, "If you looked
at
19 the --
20 A. Okay, got it.
21 Q. Could you review both the question
22 and your response.
65
1 A. (Examining.)
2 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the
3 commercial warning that Roundup is using?
4 A. Mr. Croft, I believe, is correct
in
5 quoting the Roundup web site.
6 I have never said we're using
7 Roundup, sir.
8 Q. Is it your position that it is
okay,
9 that you would not warn people to be out of the
10 area when you're about to spray the actual fumigant
11 that you're using in Columbia?
12 A. We do not warn people to be out
of
13 the area when we are spraying.
14 Q. Because it's perfectly safe to
be
15 sprayed?
16 A. It is also a risk.
17 Q. Could you acknowledge the first
part
18 of the question, though.
19 Is it your position that it is
20 perfectly safe to be sprayed by the actual fumigant
21 that you are using in Columbia?
22 A. As I have said earlier, there
are
66
1 testing indications that it could be mildly
2 irritating to the eye. If you judge that to
be
3 unsafe, then I'm not in a position to say it's
4 safe. We do not judge it to be harmful to the
5 health of individuals.
6 Q. You also say on that same page
that
7 you compare it to table salt, is that correct,
on
8 the level of toxicity?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Are you aware that the New York
11 Attorney General in 1996 got an injunction against
12 Monsanto for saying that glyphosate is as safe
as
13 table salt because it was proved to be untrue?
14 A. No, I'm unaware of that.
15 Q. What do you base your statement
on
16 that it is as safe as table salt?
17 A. Information that has been provided
18 to us in comparing the toxicity levels, which
are
19 done by independent testers to determine what
the
20 toxicity of table salt or baby shampoo is. So
I'm
21 looking at test results. We are looking at test
22 results.
67
1 Q. But you said the specific compound
2 that you are using has not been tested on humans;
3 is that correct?
4 A. That's correct. Nor are any of
the
5 tests, to the best of my knowledge, on humans.
6 Q. What date are you referring to?
7 A. I'm referring to the standard
tests
8 that EPA sets up to look at toxicity levels of
9 substances.
10 Q. As part of the bureau's oversight
in
11 coordination with DynCorp, is there any attempt
to
12 try to spray areas when populations are not likely
13 to be there?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. What kinds of guidelines are you
16 providing?
17 A. The general guideline, which is
to
18 not spray people if it is at all avoidable, to
not
19 spray houses, to not spray fields that are clearly
20 food crop fields. But if food crop is intercropped
21 with coca, then it is coca.
22 Q. Are these guidelines in a written
68
1 form, or are they part of the contract?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. But you are sure that that is
one of
4 the factors in entering into this coordination
with
5 DynCorp?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know if the pilots themselves
8 are instructed as to the possible risks of spraying
9 humans?
10 A. I don't know that for a fact.
11 Q. Do you know if the containers
for
12 the fumigant that you are using contain warning
13 labels of any sort?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. Should they, according to your
16 understanding of the safety precautions?
17 MR. RIVERA: Object to the form of
the
18 question. You're asking him should the --
19 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
20 Q. Is there any regulation, guideline
21 or requirement of the contract or any other
22 direction that your bureau has given to DynCorp
to
69
1 say that the barrel storing this material for
use
2 must have a warning label as to its possible
3 negative health effects?
4 A. I don't know.
5 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Let's mark this
as
6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6.
7 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
6
8 was marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
10 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you
11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, which is a report on the
12 study of health complaints in Columbia related
to
13 aerial eradication. This was produced to me
by
14 Mr. Gallagher, and it's on the list that I showed
15 you earlier of the documents produced. I believe
16 you said that you had not reviewed any of the
17 documents.
18 So my question is simply have
you
19 ever reviewed this particular report?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In what context?
22 A. It was information that had been
70
1 produced by the embassy concerning health effects
2 that was of interest to me. I read it.
3 Q. What conclusion, if any, did you
4 draw from this report regarding the risk to humans
5 being sprayed with the fumigant that you are
using
6 in Columbia?
7 A. That this report did not provide
a
8 conclusion that would suggest that there is a
risk
9 to humans.
10 Q. Did it prove the opposite, though,
11 in your mind that there is no risk to humans?
12 A. No.
13 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have another
report
14 that we're going to call Plaintiffs' Exhibit
7.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
7
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Have you ever seen this report
19 before?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you have a role in drafting
it?
22 A. No.
71
1 Q. Did you have a review role?
2 A. Not in the chain of its
3 finalization, no.
4 Q. In what sense did you?
5 A. I read it in conjunction with
my
6 work. I looked at it as it was being prepared.
I
7 did not personally sign off on this document
when
8 it went forward.
9 Q. The pages aren't numbered, but
if
10 you take the second to last page, the second
new
11 paragraph, "Human dietary exposures and
risks are
12 minimal. Exposure to workers," et cetera.
13 Do you know what studies, if any,
14 that is based on?
15 A. There are, as I said earlier,
a
16 series of studies which have been done with
17 respect, on the one hand, to the specific testing
18 for toxicity and long-term effects on individuals?
19 There have been other studies
which
20 use that information and other information that
21 reach the conclusions of the first sentence,
22 including studies that were done by the United
72
1 Nations.
2 Q. Is it your understanding that
this
3 particular paragraph I have pointed to you, if
you
4 look at the paragraph above and below it, there's
a
5 reference to the word "glyphosate".
6 Is it your understanding that
these
7 studies were limited to glyphosate?
8 A. And its normally included
9 surfactants.
10 Q. But not the mixture that you're
11 using in Columbia?
12 A. It did not include reference to
any
13 Cosmo-Flux, to the best of my knowledge.
14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have one more
15 document that we will call Plaintiffs' Number
8.
16 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
8
17 was marked for identification.)
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Have you ever seen this before,
20 Mr. Beers?
21 A. I certainly have seen something
that
22 is very similar to it. What doesn't -- what
I
73
1 don't remember is a document that began with
these
2 questions. I remember a document very much like
3 this, if not the same thing, which included
4 questions and answers like these.
5 Q. The document that you're referring
6 to, was it still focused on the program in
7 Columbia?
8 A. Yes, and it was produced by the
9 Narcotics Affairs Section.
10 Q. Do you know who in the Narcotics
11 Affairs Section produced the document you recall,
12 whether or not it was this one?
13 A. I believe the individual in question
14 would have been Suzanne Shelton.
15 Q. What is her position?
16 A. She is a member of the Narcotics
17 Affairs Section.
18 Q. Is she a scientist?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What is her background?
21 A. She's a lawyer.
22 Q. On that note, Mr. Beers, your
74
1 background is history; is that correct?
2 A. I have a rather eclectic background.
3 But, yes, that's my academic training.
4 Q. But you're not a chemist or a
5 biologist?
6 A. I am not a scientist.
7 Q. Are you aware of any studies that
8 have tested just glyphosate for damage from
9 inhalation on humans?
10 A. Not that I remember. However
--
11 excuse me -- the standard test includes inhalation.
12 Q. The standard test?
13 A. Dermatology, inhalation, eye
14 irritation and a fourth category.
15 Q. What is the fourth category?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. When you say standard test though,
18 again you're referring to the tests on the
19 commercial products here in the United States?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Mr. Beers, the area of Columbia,
the
22 width of which you have not told me but that
we
75
1 have called the no-spray zone, is there any
2 alternative being used there to eradicate the
coca
3 plants?
4 A. No, not to my knowledge.
5 Q. I'm not under oath, but I'm going
to
6 tell you truthfully that my 7-year-old and I
were
7 sort of discussing this case, and he suggested
that
8 hand picking -- his name is Alexander -- seems
to
9 be a logical thing to do, that people wouldn't
be
10 hurt and they could actually find the real plants
11 that they're looking for.
12 Has that option been explored
at all
13 by your bureau?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the form
of
15 the question to the extent that it requires
16 divulging any classified or otherwise protected
17 information. Otherwise, you may answer.
18 THE WITNESS: We use manual eradication
19 in other countries. The governments, excuse
me, of
20 those countries use manual eradiation. Peru
and
21 Bolivia, to be specific, in the Andean region.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
76
1 Q. Why is it not being used in
2 Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
4 THE WITNESS: The volume of the coca,
the
5 security considerations to put people on the
6 ground.
7 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
8 Q. I would like to take about a
9 five-minute break. We're close to wrapping up.
10 (A brief recess was taken.)
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Thank you for your indulgence,
13 Mr. Beers. I'm just about done here.
14 Have you heard of any studies,
15 particularly in California, where students have
16 reported negative health effects from the spraying
17 of the fumigant known as Roundup?
18 A. No, I can't say that I have.
19 Q. If we look at Exhibits 6, 7 and
8,
20 the three studies that were produced by
21 Mr. Gallagher to me -- I'll be very careful with
22 the question, and you'll probably be instructed
to
77
1 be very careful with the answer -- I'm not asking
2 you for anything, other than whether you can
tell
3 me if there are other studies that you're aware
of
4 that show any negative effects of the fumigant
that
5 you are using in Columbia?
6 A. I know of no studies that show
a
7 negative effect of the fumigant that we are using
8 in Columbia.
9 Q. Do you know of any studies, other
10 than these three that are Exhibit 6 through 8,
that
11 show that it does not hurt anyone to spray the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia, that
are
13 specific to that fumigant?
14 MR. RIVERA: If I can just clarify
the
15 question, you're asking for State Department
16 information or studies that are reflected in
State
17 Department materials as opposed to EPA or anyone
18 else?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Any study.
20 THE WITNESS: Relevant to Columbia?
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Yes.
78
1 A. There is another study which I
have
2 not seen the final version of it -- although,
it
3 may now exist -- which was similar to the Aponte
4 study, a different area and a larger group.
5 Q. Do you know who is conducting
that
6 study?
7 A. I believe it is the same group
of
8 people.
9 Q. That did?
10 A. The Aponte study.
11 Q. Was any study done dealing with
the
12 fumigant that you are using in Columbia on Patrick
13 Air Force Base?
14 A. I'm not aware of one.
15 Q. Who trains the DynCorp pilots
that
16 are operating in Columbia?
17 A. The DynCorp pilots that are
18 operating in Columbia are provided through a
19 subcontractor, East Corporation. The Air Wing
and
20 DynCorp together have a pilot training program.
I
21 can't say in any individual instance who
22 specifically trained that pilot on this mission.
79
1 They are all experienced pilots.
2 Q. But your wing division does some
3 training in Columbia?
4 A. Or in Patrick.
5 Q. For people that would be going
down
6 to Columbia?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. You said the Columbian government
9 could stop a particular fumigation flight if
the
10 wind was to great?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Are there any other --
13 A. Or any other reason. They could
14 stop it, period.
15 MR. RIVERA: Let me instruct the witness
16 to let Mr. Collingsworth finish his question.
17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are you aware of any other reasons
20 that in fact have been used to stop a flight,
other
21 than weather, by the Columbian government?
22 A. You're including wind within the
80
1 weather question?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. What was the reason or reasons?
5 A. The government of Columbia stopped
6 spraying in Putumayo on approximately the 5th
of
7 February of the year 2001 because they wanted
to
8 end spraying in Putumayo at that time to see
what
9 would happen with respect to the local campesino
10 signing up for alternative development.
11 Q. Was it resumed?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Any other reasons you're aware
of
14 why the Columbian government stopped the spraying?
15 MR. RIVERA: Stopped the spraying in
16 Putumayo?
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: In Columbia.
18 MR. RIVERA: Ever?
19 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.
21 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
22 Q. Could your bureau stop a particular
81
1 spray run for any reason?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What would the reasons be that
your
4 bureau would be authorized to stop a particular
5 fumigation run in Columbia?
6 A. In the judgment of the people
who
7 were involved, the spraying conditions were such
8 that it was inappropriate, assuming that the
9 Columbian government hadn't on its on recognizance
10 stopped that or for other considerations which
11 might be political.
12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I'm handing you
an
13 exhibit that we're going to mark as Plaintiffs'
14 Number 9.
15 (Beers Deposition Exhibit No.
9
16 was marked for identification.)
17 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
18 Q. Mr. Beers, I've handed you a
19 Declaration signed by a Salvador Quishpe, who
is
20 the political director of an organization called
21 Conaie.
22 Do you know that organization?
Have
82
1 you heard of them before?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. I would direct your attention
to
4 paragraph number 5, the last paragraph.
5 A. (Witness complies.)
6 Q. If you could read that paragraph.
7 MR. RIVERA: Can Mr. Beers have a minute
8 to read the entire document?
9 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Sure.
10 MR. RIVERA: Thank you.
11 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
12 Q. Have you had a chance to review
13 paragraph number five?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. In paragraph number five, the
16 declarant is questioning the foreign policy
17 objectives of the United States government.
18 And my question to you is, is
a
19 factor of your foreign policy considerations
that
20 are enumerated throughout your own Declaration
21 trying to maintain good relations with the local
22 populations who are not drug traffickers and
who
83
1 are not terrorists?
2 MR. RIVERA: I'm sorry, the local
3 population in Columbia?
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: And Ecuador.
5 THE WITNESS: It is not the policy
of the
6 United States to drive people away from the United
7 States.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Have you ever sent or directed
10 anyone to go to Ecuador to specifically investigate
11 whether there are effects that would be visible
12 that would be consistent with the claim that
the
13 fumigation has occurred in Ecuador?
14 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the extent
15 that it calls for a revealing any classified
or
16 other national security protected information.
17 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
18 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
19 Q. Are there any plans to do that?
20 MR. RIVERA: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: Not at present.
22 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
84
1 Q. Are you aware of any study done
by
2 anyone that would indicate to your satisfaction
3 that there is no harm done in Ecuador that would
be
4 consistent with fumigation?
5 A. We have looked into the allegations,
6 and we have found no evidence that spraying was
7 done in Ecuador or that spray drifted into Ecuador.
8 Q. But you have said that you didn't
9 send anyone to Ecuador to do that.
10 How did you accomplish that?
11 A. We know where the planes are.
12 Q. So based on your knowledge of
where
13 the planes actually flew?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. What evidence do you have of the
16 plane flight paths that would to you demonstrate
17 that it is impossible that they sprayed in Ecuador?
18 A. Almost all planes and one plane
on
19 every flight of planes is equipped with a location
20 system which tells us where the plane is.
21 Q. What is the closest, as you sit
here
22 today, that you're aware of a plane that was
85
1 spraying under Plan Columbia came to the border
2 with Ecuador ever in the history of Plan Columbia?
3 MR. RIVERA: I'll object to the question
4 to the extent that it calls for revealing any
5 classified State secret information.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm not in a position
to
7 answer that question.
8 BY MR. COLLINGSWORTH:
9 Q. Do you know the answer to it and
10 you're not answering because --
11 A. No, I don't know the answer to
the
12 question.
13 Q. Who would know the answer to that
14 question on your staff? Is there someone who
is
15 particularly --
16 A. Officials in the Air Wing.
17 Q. Is there one particular official
who
18 would be most likely to have that information?
19 A. I'm not sure.
20 Q. Do you have some options for me?
21 A. Mr. Etheridge.
22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Beers, that
86
1 concludes my questions. Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Does anyone else
have
4 anything?
5 MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: No questions.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the deposition
7 of RAND BEERS was concluded.)
8 * * * * *
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
87
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, RAND BEERS, the witness herein,
having
5 read the foregoing testimony of the pages of
this
6 deposition do hereby certify it to be a true
and
7 correct transcript, subject to the corrections,
if
8 any, shown on the attached page.
9
10
11 ________________________
12 RAND BEERS
13
14 Subscribed and sworn to before me
15 this ______day of____________, 2002.
16 __________________________________.
17
18
19
20
21
22
88
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
3
4 I, SHIRLEY S. MITCHELL, Notary Public
5 within and for the District of Columbia, do hereby
6 certify:
7 That the witness whose deposition is
8 hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn and that
the
9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony
10 given by such witness.
11 I further certify that I am not related
12 to any of the parties to this action by blood
or
13 marriage and that I am in no way interested in
the
14 outcome of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set
16 my hand this _______day of __________, 2002.
17
18
19 __________________________
20 My Commission Expires:
21 March 31, 2005
22