FAS Note: The following remarks of Rep. Tim Roemer are excerpted from House debate on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill which included $1.7 billion for counternarcotics activities in Colombia; around $5 billion for various other national security programs; and more.

Congressional Record: March 29, 2000 (House)
Page H1495-H1585


              2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT


[...]

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that stresses
prevention, that stresses education, that stresses us putting more of a
priority on our domestic concerns right here at home, in our
neighborhood, and in our back yards.
  I also rise to show and express my deep reservations and concerns
about, one, the process in spending contained

[[Page H1534]]

in this supplemental; secondly, the goals and the mission and whether
or not they can be achieved for trying to address the problem in
Colombia.
  I think we are all concerned about it. We all want to do something
about it. It is whether or not this program will achieve the mission
and the objectives outlined by the administration. I do not think we
can.
  Thirdly, I object to this supplemental because it contains a
particular classified intelligence funding program, and I will address
that at the end.
  First of all, on the size, the spending level, and the process of
this supplemental. This is an emergency supplemental which, by its
function here in Congress, I do not necessarily object to emergency
supplementals. The gentleman from Arkansas said that it started with
the President. It started at $5.2 billion. Now it is before us, the
entire House, at $9.2 billion. We will have amendments that might be
attached to it that might take it to $13 or $14 billion. Then it will
be sent over to the Senate, where it might come back to the House at
$15 or $16 billion.
  Maybe I am more of a conservative in the House. Maybe I am to the
right of the majority. But we have made so much progress on balancing
the budget. We have made a priority of getting surpluses. We have tried
to tell Congress to keep their hands off of social security. Now, in
the third month of the year, before we have done any appropriations
bills, we are looking at a presidential request of $5.2 billion to $15
billion. I do not think that is appropriate or fair to the
appropriations process and to the priorities that we are going to
outline.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) might bring a defense bill
in the appropriations process forward that I will support an increase
in, or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) might bring an
appropriations bill for education with new ideas and more
accountability that I will support.
  But this is an emergency supplemental that may spend, that may spend,
one-third to one-half of the non-social security surplus in one shot.
We have a $26 billion surplus. This may take $13 billion of that
surplus in one vote.
  Finally, on Colombia, Colombia has had a 40-year civil war, an
ongoing drug problem, and an army and a police force that have not
worked together. As a matter of fact, institutionally and culturally
and law enforcement training-wise, they do not work together well at
all.
  And we think $1.9 billion, 30 Blackhawks, and 15 Hueys is going to
cure that? I do not think this is going to address the civil war or
further the peace process. I think it is going to exacerbate both.
  Finally, on the intelligence front, as a member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, I take an oath of secrecy. To abide
by that oath, this statement has been approved by the committee to
confirm and conform to that oath.
  This bill contains some classified funding requested by the
administration for intelligence programs and activities. As a member of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I generally support
most of this funding. There is a particular intelligence activity
funded by this bill, however, which I cannot support.
  I try to judge spending on intelligence programs by the same standard
I use on other Federal spending: Is the program in the national
interest, and likely to achieve its goals?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the intelligence activity
which I have reservations on fails on both these counts, on both
achieving its goals and supporting the national interest.
  I have advised senior officials in the administration of my concerns.
I hope that this decision to continue this particular activity will be
reconsidered.