2000 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr.
HASTINGS of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas has 3½ minutes remaining.
2000 Ron Paul 23:2 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
2000 Ron Paul 23:3 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:4 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:5 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:6 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 years
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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:7 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:8 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:9 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 of them.
2000 Ron Paul 23:10 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.
2000 Ron Paul 23:10
Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good for us.
probably should be
Some day we should ask the question of whether this policy is good for us.