Speech by Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colorado), June 29, 2000

Speech by Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colorado), June 29, 2000

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this conference report. I cannot approve of the process that has brought us to this point or of the result. A good bill was hijacked to produce what I think is a problematic package.

This is called a conference report on the military construction bill. But in reality it is much more, and includes both money for many other purposes and provisions dealing with other subjects. And we are considering it without anyone except the conferees having even had a chance to review its contents.

I supported the Military Construction Appropriations bill when we considered it on the floor in May. I supported it because it funds military construction projects, family housing, base realignment, environmental cleanup, and other programs. I supported it in particular because it funds a number of important projects for Colorado, namely funds for a training site at Fort Carson, for a munitions storage and maintenance site at Buckley Air National Guard Air Force Base, and for upgrading facilities at Peterson Air Force Base.

If that were all that was in this conference report, I could support it as well.

However, this conference report also includes many items that were originally part of a separate measure, a supplemental appropriations bill for the current fiscal year.

As I noted when the House originally considered that bill, there are other good things in it that I support. For example, some parts of the bill truly concern `emergencies'--funding to help low-income families cope with sharply rising home heating oil bills; funding to repair damaged roads and bridges and to develop affordable housing for those dislocated by recent floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters; disaster loans for small businesses, farm aid, and rural economic and community development grants to meet needs arising from natural disasters. These are all important and worthwhile and appropriate purposes for an `emergency' spending bill. Also important is funding that the bill provides for NASA's Space Shuttle upgrades, security at our nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and funds to accelerate environmental cleanup of DOE facilities.

But these good things are far outweighed by what I consider to be some very problematic provisions.

One of the most troublesome is the `anti-drug' package for Colombia. I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem that the proposal attempts to address. Indeed, there is much cause for alarm. Colombia produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine and about two-thirds of the heroin consumed in this country, and new estimates show that cocaine production in Colombia is up 126 percent in the last five years. That said, I am not convinced that a costly military approach is the best response to the problem. I believe we should be considering other ways to address the source of the problem--the U.S. demand for drugs--by funding additional treatment and education programs right here at home.

There is very little about the Colombia package that has been shown to merit our support. Think for a moment about the dismal human rights record of the Colombian military. The military would itself be the recipient of the billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Human rights organizations have linked right-wing paramilitary groups to the Colombian military and to drug trafficking and atrocities against civilians. How can we be content to pass a bill that could well make this situation worse?

We should also think about the lack of clear objectives for this program. There is no `exit' strategy spelled out. There is no way to ensure farmers won't resume cultivating drug crops once this billion-dollar assistance package dries up. None of these questions about the long-term goals for this program have been adequately answered. Still, we're being asked to support a program that could draw U.S. troops into a protracted counterinsurgency struggle--and one that may ultimately have little effect on the drug trade.

In addition, the conference report reportedly includes at least one anti-environmental rider that would block EPA from taking certain actions to enforce the Clean Water Act--and there may be more. I would have problems with that even if we had had a chance to review the language before voting. Since we can't even do that, I have no choice but to oppose the conference report for that reason as well.

As of July 18, 2000, this document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H29JN0-B744: