March 30, 2000
------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H1607]
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. (a) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following amounts:
(1) `DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Drug Enforcement Administration--Salaries and Expenses', $293,048,000.
(2) `DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY--OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense', $185,800,000.
(3) `BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--Funds Appropriated to the President--Department of State--Assistance for Plan Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics Activities', $1,099,000,000.
(b) None of the funds made available in title I for `Military Construction, Defense-Wide' may be used for construction outside of the United States or any of its territories or possessions.
(c) None of the funds made available in title II may be used for operations in Kosovo or East Timor, other than the return of United States personnel and property to the United States.
[Page: H1608]
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I am not dealing with a fly, a gnat, or a flea with my amendment. I would rather not categorize this as dealing with an elephant for obvious reasons.
But I would like to say that my amendment deals with what I consider a monster, and that monster to me is careless foreign military interventionism in which we engage way too often and something we are getting ready to further engage ourselves now in Colombia.
I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, `I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. I enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.' Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world.
Earlier on, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do we defer to them for policy and we extend ourselves throughout the world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens know.
Last year, when we were dealing with Kosovo and our initial involvement in there, we had several votes on the floor dealing with the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo.
But, unfortunately, when it came time to deal with the funding, we were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in Kosovo as well as Bosnia, East Timor, and now with plans to go into South America, principally Colombia.
My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home. Some people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, that we are deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite the opposite. I think it would absolutely be helpful, because the morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower. The morale is low because they do not know what their real function is in areas where we're involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as well as Peace Corps type operators.
The morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops home. This is what this amendment deals with. And it strikes the funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America.
In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in self-defense. At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations.
I cannot think of a worse situation where there is a four-way faction in Colombia for us to get further involved. Buying 63 helicopters is bound to cause trouble and some will be shot down thus requiring more involvement by American troops.
It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces.
This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to decide whether or not they would like to vote clearly and say to the American people, `I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world.' This is what this amendment says. Quite frankly, the large majority of the American people are strongly supportive of this position.
This is a clear amendment. This is not dealing with a gnat or a flea. This is dealing with a principle. Some say this amendment deals with a principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President.
That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words `foreign policy' do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject.
I would have preferred an amendment that would have struck some of these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds spent here at home. That amendment was not permissible under the rule.
But this point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support.
I think this is a very important amendment, and I think the American people support it.
[Page: H1609]
Mr. Chairman, 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 of them.
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.
[Pages: H1616-H1617]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 45, noes 367, not voting 22, as follows:
Roll No. 92
- Archer
- Brown (OH)
- Campbell
- Cannon
- Chabot
- Coburn
- Collins
- Combest
- Cook
- Danner
- Deal
- DeMint
- Dickey
- Duncan
- Ewing
- Gekas
- Graham
- Gutknecht
- Hill (MT)
- Hilleary
- Hoekstra
- Hulshof
- Jones (NC)
- Largent
- Linder
- Manzullo
- Metcalf
- Moran (KS)
- Paul
- Peterson (MN)
- Petri
- Pitts
- Ramstad
- Rohrabacher
- Royce
- Salmon
- Sanford
- Scarborough
- Sensenbrenner
- Shadegg
- Simpson
- Stark
- Tancredo
- Terry
- Toomey
- Abercrombie
- Ackerman
- Aderholt
- Allen
- Andrews
- Armey
- Baca
- Bachus
- Baird
- Baker
- Baldacci
- Baldwin
- Ballenger
- Barcia
- Barr
- Barrett (NE)
- Barrett (WI)
- Bartlett
- Barton
- Bass
- Bateman
- Bentsen
- Bereuter
- Berkley
- Berman
- Berry
- Biggert
- Bilbray
- Bilirakis
- Bishop
- Blagojevich
- Bliley
- Blumenauer
- Blunt
- Boehlert
- Boehner
- Bonilla
- Bonior
- Bono
- Borski
- Boswell
- Boucher
- Boyd
- Brady (PA)
- Brady (TX)
- Brown (FL)
- Bryant
- Burton
- Buyer
- Callahan
- Calvert
- Camp
- Canady
- Capps
- Capuano
- Cardin
- Carson
- Castle
- Chambliss
- Clay
- Clayton
- Clement
- Clyburn
- Coble
- Condit
- Conyers
- Cooksey
- Costello
- Cox
- Coyne
- Cramer
- Crowley
- Cubin
- Cummings
- Cunningham
- Davis (FL)
- Davis (IL)
- Davis (VA)
- DeFazio
- DeGette
- Delahunt
- DeLauro
- DeLay
- Deutsch
- Diaz-Balart
- Dicks
- Dingell
- Dixon
- Doggett
- Dooley
- Doolittle
- Doyle
- Dreier
- Dunn
- Edwards
- Ehlers
- Ehrlich
- Emerson
- Engel
- English
- Eshoo
- Etheridge
- Evans
- Farr
- Fattah
- Filner
- Fletcher
- Foley
- Forbes
- Ford
- Fossella
- Fowler
- Frank (MA)
- Frelinghuysen
- Frost
- Gallegly
- Ganske
- Gejdenson
- Gephardt
- Gibbons
- Gilchrest
- Gillmor
- Gilman
- Gonzalez
- Goode
- Goodlatte
- Goodling
- Gordon
- Goss
- Green (TX)
- Green (WI)
- Greenwood
- Gutierrez
- Hall (OH)
- Hall (TX)
- Hansen
- Hastings (FL)
- Hastings (WA)
- Hayes
- Hayworth
- Hefley
- Herger
- Hill (IN)
- Hilliard
- Hinojosa
- Hobson
- Hoeffel
- Holden
- Holt
- Hooley
- Horn
- Hostettler
- Houghton
- Hunter
- Hutchinson
- Hyde
- Inslee
- Isakson
- Jackson (IL)
- Jackson-Lee (TX)
- Jefferson
- Jenkins
- John
- Johnson (CT)
- Johnson, E.B.
- Johnson, Sam
- Jones (OH)
- Kanjorski
- Kasich
- Kelly
- Kennedy
- Kildee
- Kilpatrick
- Kind (WI)
- King (NY)
- Kingston
- Kleczka
- Knollenberg
- Kolbe
- Kucinich
- Kuykendall
- LaFalce
- LaHood
- Lampson
- Lantos
- Larson
- Latham
- LaTourette
- Lazio
- Leach
- Lee
- Levin
- Lewis (CA)
- Lewis (GA)
- Lewis (KY)
- Lipinski
- LoBiondo
- Lofgren
- Lowey
- Lucas (KY)
- Lucas (OK)
- Luther
- Maloney (CT)
- Maloney (NY)
- Markey
- Martinez
- Mascara
- Matsui
- McCarthy (MO)
- McCarthy (NY)
- McCollum
- McCrery
- McDermott
- McGovern
- McHugh
- McInnis
- McIntyre
- McKeon
- McKinney
- McNulty
- Meehan
- Meek (FL)
- Meeks (NY)
- Menendez
- Mica
- Millender-McDonald
- Miller (FL)
- Miller, Gary
- Miller, George
- Minge
- Mink
- Moakley
- Mollohan
- Moore
- Moran (VA)
- Morella
- Murtha
- Myrick
- Nadler
- Napolitano
- Neal
- Nethercutt
- Ney
- Northup
- Norwood
- Nussle
- Oberstar
- Obey
- Olver
- Ortiz
- Ose
- Owens
- Oxley
- Packard
- Pallone
- Pascrell
- Pastor
- Payne
- Pease
- Pelosi
- Peterson (PA)
- Phelps
- Pickering
- Pickett
- Pombo
- Pomeroy
- Porter
- Portman
- Price (NC)
- Pryce (OH)
- Radanovich
- Rahall
- Rangel
- Regula
- Reyes
- Reynolds
- Riley
- Rivers
- Rodriguez
- Roemer
- Rogers
- Rothman
- Roukema
- Roybal-Allard
- Ryan (WI)
- Ryun (KS)
- Sabo
- Sanchez
- Sanders
- Sandlin
- Sawyer
- Saxton
- Schaffer
- Schakowsky
- Scott
- Serrano
- Sessions
- Shaw
- Shays
- Sherman
- Sherwood
- Shimkus
- Shows
- Shuster
- Sisisky
- Skeen
- Skelton
- Slaughter
- Smith (MI)
- Smith (NJ)
- Smith (TX)
- Smith (WA)
- Snyder
- Souder
- Spratt
- Stabenow
- Stearns
- Stenholm
- Strickland
- Stump
- Stupak
- Sununu
- Sweeney
- Talent
- Tanner
- Tauscher
- Tauzin
- Taylor (MS)
- Taylor (NC)
- Thomas
- Thompson (CA)
- Thornberry
- Thune
- Thurman
- Tiahrt
- Tierney
- Towns
- Traficant
- Turner
- Udall (CO)
- Udall (NM)
- Upton
- Velazquez
- Visclosky
- Vitter
- Walden
- Walsh
- Wamp
- Waters
- Watkins
- Watt (NC)
- Watts (OK)
- Weldon (FL)
- Weldon (PA)
- Weller
- Wexler
- Weygand
- Whitfield
- Wicker
- Wilson
- Wise
- Wolf
- Woolsey
- Wu
- Wynn
- Young (AK)
- Young (FL)
- Becerra
- Burr
- Chenoweth-Hage
- Crane
- Everett
- Franks (NJ)
- Granger
- Hinchey
- Hoyer
- Istook
- Kaptur
- Klink
- McIntosh
- Quinn
- Rogan
- Ros-Lehtinen
- Rush
- Spence
- Thompson (MS)
- Vento
- Waxman
- Weiner
So the amendment was rejected.