2002 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in
strong support of this amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton)
for bringing this to us. There has been a lot of discussion in the last
2 days,
a lot about the deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony,
especially
because it comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the
aisle, that
do a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the
debate went on
and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of politics in
the debate.
2002 Ron Paul 49:2
The interesting thing about
what is
going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war,
and this is
important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to
get things
like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key
issue.
This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in
central
America and, specifically, in Colombia.
2002 Ron Paul 49:3
Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago
we
appropriated $1.6 billion, and we went into Colombia with the intent of
reducing
drug usage. Instead it is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They
sprayed
210,000 acres, and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It
reminds
me of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and
drug
production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our
drug
program in Colombia.
2002 Ron Paul 49:4
But the theory is that we will
be more
effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace
and we
were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace
after 40
years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the
approach
is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and
we want
American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want
spraying
fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing
with
here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full
understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a
military
operation in Colombia.
2002 Ron Paul 49:5
What we are doing is we are
appropriating for something for the administration to do without a
proper
authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down
there. We
cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation
process.
It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works
with
granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no
authority, and now
he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my
colleagues,
if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.
2002 Ron Paul 49:6
This dilutes our national
defense, it
dilutes our forces, exposes our troops, takes away our weapons,
increases the
expenditures. If we ignore this issue I guess we can go back to
demagoging the
national debt limit.
2002 Ron Paul 49:7
So I would say, please, take a
close
look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The
drug war
down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that
we are
about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense,
and this
does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure
when we go
into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get
troops in
later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody
remember
about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other
times in our
history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a
minor
little increase in appropriation.
2002 Ron Paul 49:8
So I would ask, once again,
where is
the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go
down and
expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national
defense or
our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security,
and we know
it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is
not well
protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this
at times.
So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.
2002 Ron Paul 49:9
It just happens that we have
spread
ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15
countries
that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has
something to do
with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf?
We are
in the Persian Gulf to protect our oil. Why are we involved with
making
and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I
thought
we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have
participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official
in
Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as
well.
Could that have been the reason.
2002 Ron Paul 49:10
So I would say, once again,
please take
a look at this amendment. This amendment is a yes vote, and I urge
my
colleagues to support it.
This chapter appeared in Ron Pauls Congressional website at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr052302.htm