FAS | Government Secrecy | March 2000 News ||| Index | Search | Join FAS

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



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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  (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 

FAS | Government Secrecy | March 2000 News ||| Index | Search | Join FAS