by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), March 30, 2000
PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not believe for one minute
this is a surrender to the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the
$250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that
the strategy against drugs is wrong.
Why continue a war that does
not work? This is money down a rat hole. This is totally wasted money
and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and
go in to Colombia and protect oil interests. That is the real reason why
we are down there.
We say this is only replacement
of money for Kosovo. Well, what makes us think if we put the money in
and replace it the President will not do the same thing over again? Of
course he will. The fact that we are not watching the purse strings tightly
enough is the problem.
The gentleman suggests that
this would mean that there would be no more building and no support for
our troops in Korea. My amendment only deals with the money in this supplemental.
What about the current year's budget? Those funds can still be spent.
But it also suggests that we shall question how long are we going to be
in Korea. It is time to start thinking about these matters. It is time
to bring these troops home.
If we want to spend the money,
spend it here at home. Spend the money here. Build up our national defense.
If we wish to continually expand our interventionism and aggravation overseas,
then I guess we have to vote against this amendment and for the bill.
But this is a policy statement. Should we continue current policy of forever
spending money and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start
thinking about what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers,
what is good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional
republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized
to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world.
This is the furtherest stretch
of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget,
especially what we are going to do in Colombia, has anything to do with
national security. What are we worried about? Are the Colombians going
to attack us? This is not national security. This is special interest
spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is.
We condemn all the welfare
from the left, but we always have our own welfare on the right, and it
is not for national defense. We should do less of this military adventurism
overseas and put it into national defense, take better care of our troops,
which would boost morale, and increase our ability to defend our country.
But, instead, what do we do? We subsidize our enemies to the tune of many
billions of dollars for a country like China at the same time, when they
are aggravated and annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan
and then promise to send American servicemen to stand in between the two
Some day we should ask the
question of whether is this policy in good for us. I am frightened to
think that this will only change either when we are in such a mess, a
lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke or both. But we should
not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We
have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it
comes from the constitution, certainly we should note the tradition of
the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a
proper foreign policy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time.
As of March 31, 2000, this
document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H30MR0-20: