Return to the 1999 Congressional Record directory

Project FREEDOM Opening Page

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Aug. 2, 1999

During Debate on an AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PAUL OF TEXAS
TO PROHIBIT USE OF TAXPAYERS FUNDS FOR ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

------------

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H6833]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut.

I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country.

Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause.

So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law." "Appropriations contained in this act," the report says, "are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution."

That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be.

So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.

...

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything. This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years.

So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them around and there is a real thing called fungibility.

So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our standards on them.

Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and Depo-Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control pill. These are not benign.

And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign countries and impose our will on them.