The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate

The U.N. Population Fund:
Background and the U.S. Funding Debate
Updated July 24, 2008
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division



The U.N. Population Fund:
Background and the U.S. Funding Debate
Summary
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), established in 1969, is the
world’s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the
principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. In 2006, the
organization provided services in some 154 developing and transition countries, with
funds totaling $605.5 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made
by 180 nations and some foundations.
The United States, with strong support from Congress, was an important actor
in the launch of UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late 1960s, Congress began to
express heightened concern over the impact of rapid population growth on
development prospects in poor countries. In 1967, Congress earmarked funds for
population assistance programs, urging the United States to channel family planning
resources through the United Nations and other international organizations.
In its first 25 years, UNFPA moved from an organization focused on statistical
collection and analysis to an agency providing maternal and child health/family
planning assistance. UNFPA played a large role in shaping the 1994 International
Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), held in Cairo. The Cairo
Conference marked a turning point in the international debate over the impact of
population issues on global development, and established a policy framework called
the Plan of Action that continues to guide current family planning and reproductive
health policies, including the work of UNFPA. The Plan integrated population
concerns into the broad context of development — concluding that education and
health, including reproductive health, were prerequisites for sustainable development.
During the past two decades, there has been a continuing and contentious debate
within the United States, and especially within Congress, as to whether the United
States should financially support UNFPA. The issue has centered on the extent to
which, if any, UNFPA aids China’s coercive family planning programs and policies.
In 15 of the past 24 years, the United States has not contributed to the organization
as a result of executive branch determinations that UNFPA’s program in China was
in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment banning U.S. aid to organizations
involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. On June 26,
2008, the Administration announced that UNFPA was ineligible for FY2008 funding
under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. For FY2009, the Bush Administration
requested that $25 million be made available for UNFPA if it is determined eligible
under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The appropriated funds would be drawn from
the Child Survival and Health Programs account.
While UNFPA receives voluntary contributions from many countries and some
private foundations, most of its income comes from a handful of donors. The
Netherlands and Japan recently have been the largest contributors. Throughout the
last decade, when the United States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S.
contributions have represented about 8% of UNFPA’s regular budget. This report
will be updated as policy changes or congressional actions warrant.



Contents
UNFPA: Its Origins and Operations...................................1
UNFPA and World Population Conferences: 1974 and 1984...........2
The 1994 Cairo Conference and UNFPA’s Changing Mandate..........3
UNFPA Operations Today.......................................4
Budget Trends............................................4
UNFPA Program Priorities..................................5
Regional and Country Program Focus..........................6
U.S. Policy Towards UNFPA........................................7
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA..........................7
The Kemp-Kasten Amendment...................................9
Implementation and Court Challenges.........................10
Reinterpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration....11
George W. Bush Administration Reviews Kemp-Kasten..............12
State Department Assessment and Findings....................13
UNFPA Found in Violation of Kemp-Kasten...................14
Subsequent Administration Reviews and Legislative Action ...........14
FY2009 Administration Request.............................14
FY2008 Appropriations and UNFPA Funding..................14
FY2007 Appropriations and UNFPA Funding..................15
Additional Legislative Efforts in the 110th Congress..............16
UNFPA and China................................................17
Investigations of UNFPA Programs in China .......................18
The Population Research Institute............................18
The Biegman Group.......................................18
British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development,
and Reproductive Health...............................18
The Interfaith Delegation to China...........................19
Kemp-Kasten Application Beyond UNFPA............................19
Appendix A. UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions,
FY1985-2009 ................................................21
List of Figures
Figure 1. UNFPA Program Functions, FY2006...........................6
Figure 2. UNFPA Assistance, by Region, FY2006........................6
List of Tables
Table 1. UNFPA Income...........................................4
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors..................................4
Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA................................8



The U.N. Population Fund:
Background and the U.S. Funding Debate
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which began operations in 1969
as the U.N. Fund for Population Activities, is the world’s largest source of population
and reproductive health programs and the principal unit within the United Nations
for global population issues. In 2006, the year for which the most recent figures are
available, the organization provided services in some 154 developing and transition
countries, with funds totaling $565 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary
contributions made by 171 nations and some foundations.
During the past two and a half decades, there has been a continuing and
contentious debate within the United States, and especially within Congress, as to
whether the U.S. should financially support the organization. The issue has centered
on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids China’s coercive family planning
programs and policies. In 9 of the past 24 years, the United States has been one of
the leading contributors to UNFPA. For the other 15 years, however, the United
States has not made voluntary contributions to the organization as a result of
executive branch determinations that UNFPA supported coercive Chinese practices
or because of legislative prohibitions. For the past seven years, the Bush
Administration has found UNFPA ineligible for U.S. funding and transferred
proposed annual contributions to other foreign aid activities. Future U.S.
contributions to UNFPA may be considered during the 110th Congress as part of the
debate on the annual Foreign Operations appropriation bill and other foreign policy
legislation.
This report provides an overview of the U.N. Population Fund, its current
mission and operations, and recent funding trends. It further discusses the role of the
United States in supporting UNFPA programs, the varying interpretations by several
Administrations of legislative authorities pertaining to UNFPA’s eligibility for
American resources, and congressional debates over how much and under what
conditions the United States should voluntarily contribute to UNFPA operations.
Finally, it reviews the findings of several private and U.S. government investigations
of China’s family planning programs and the role UNFPA plays in their
implementation.
UNFPA: Its Origins and Operations
The United Nations, since its earliest days, has maintained an interest in
population issues. In 1947, the United Nations established a Population Commission
that collected and analyzed global population data and supported member
government efforts to examine information about national populations. Following



several years of U.N. debate over the rapid rise of the world’s population, the General
Assembly approved a resolution in 1966 calling on the United Nations and other
international organizations to extend technical assistance on population matters.
In 1967, the U.N. Secretary-General created a Trust Fund for Population
Activities, which in 1969 was renamed the U.N. Fund for Population Activities
(UNFPA). Initially, UNFPA was administered by the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the organization’s primary international development organ.
Within a few years, at the direction of the General Assembly, UNFPA had expanded
its operations beyond statistical collection and analysis to the provision of maternal
and child health/family planning, communication and education, and population
policy assistance. By 1972, UNFPA was operating in 78 countries with a budget of
over $30 million. With such rapid growth in the Fund’s scope and programs,
UNFPA became a separate entity under the direct authority of the General Assembly,
with the same status as UNDP and the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF).1
In these initial years, the United States provided the majority of UNFPA funding
through voluntary contributions. In 1968 and 1969, when seven governments
extended financial support, the $4 million transfer by the United States represented
nearly 80% of total contributions. By 1972, the number of donors had grown to 52,
but the United States remained by far the largest source of funds, with 46% of the
total. Over the next decade, the U.S. share declined to about 25% as other nations
increased their contributions (see Table 1).
UNFPA and World Population Conferences: 1974 and 1984
UNFPA played a significant role in the World Population Conferences, held a
decade apart in Bucharest (1974) and Mexico City (1984). Following the 1974
meeting of 133 nations, the U.N. General Assembly called for the expansion of
international population assistance, with UNFPA taking a lead role, to implement the
plan of action endorsed at the Bucharest Conference. Partially due to the growing
attention on world population issues, UNFPA operations expanded rapidly during
this period. The scope of UNFPA’s work also broadened, so that by the early 1980s,
the organization focused on eight primary areas:
!Family planning, including delivery systems and fertility regulation
techniques;
!Data collection;
!Formulation and evaluation of population policies and programs;
!Communications and education;
!Population dynamics, including demographic projections and their
analysis;
!Implementation of policies and programs, including efforts “beyond
family planning” related to law and population, status of women,
and economic policies;


1 UNFPA. “What it Is; What it Does.” 1983; and UNFPA at 30 Years — Fact Sheets.
October 26, 1999. (Hereafter cited as UNFPA, What it Is; What it Does.)

!Special programs focusing on women, children, the elderly, the
disabled, and programs to promote social justice; and
!Multisector activities, including support for population conferences
and training.2
The 1994 Cairo Conference and UNFPA’s Changing Mandate
UNFPA was a major catalyst in organizing, financing, and implementing
outcomes of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD), held in Cairo. The Cairo Conference marked a turning point in the
international debate over the impact of population issues on global development and
established a policy framework that continues to guide current family planning and
reproductive health policies. The Plan of Action that emerged from the Cairo
Conference, to a much greater extent than before, integrated population concerns into
the broad context of development, concluding that education and health (including
reproductive health), were prerequisites for sustainable development. The
Conference shifted population program strategies away from demographic goals and
toward human welfare and poverty reduction objectives. The Conference further
focused far more attention on the status and empowerment of women. Moving
beyond strictly health issues, the conference endorsed programs to promote expanded
opportunities for the education of women and girls, to end gender discrimination and
violence against women, and to strengthen women’s grassroots activist
organiz ations.3
Since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA programs have and continue to be guided
by the ICPD’s Program of Action, which contains the following goals:
!Universal access to reproductive health services by 2015;
!Universal primary education and closing the gender gap in education
by 2015;
!Reducing maternal mortality by 75% by 2015;
!Reducing infant mortality; and
!Increasing life expectancy.
In 1999, an additional goal — reducing HIV infection rates in persons 15-24 years
of age by 25% in the most-affected countries by 2005 and by 25% globally by 2010
— was incorporated into the Program of Action and integrated into UNFPA’s work.4


2 UNFPA. What it Is; What it Does. 1983.
3 See, CRS Report 94-533, Population and Development: The 1994 Cairo Conference, by
Curt Tarnoff. (Archived; available on request from author).
4 UNFPA Background. Found at UNFPA website [http://www.unfpa.org/hiv/index.htm].

UNFPA Operations Today
Budget Trends. With income of
Table 1. UNFPA Income$605.5 million, the 2006 UNFPA budget
(current $ in millions)was its largest in recent years (see Table 1).
UNFPA derives most of its income from
YearRegularSupple-mentalTotalvoluntary contributions to its regular budget
which finances continuing core country
97$293$33$326programs and the organization’s
98$273$36$309administrative costs. A growing but less
flexible source of revenue has been from
99$250$38$288supplementary donations that are provided
00$262$104$366either for cost-sharing purposes or forplacement in trust funds. Through
01$268$128$396supplementary resource transfers, donors
02$260$113$373can earmark exactly how their contributionswill be spent. In 2000, for example, the
03$292$106$398Netherlands provided $41 million
04$332$174$506specifically to procure contraceptivecommodities.
05 $366 $199 $565
While UNFPA receives voluntary
06$389$216$605contributions from many countries — 180 in
Source: UNFPA.2006 — and from some private foundations,
most of its income for regular country
programs and operating expenses comes
from a handful of donors. During the past 10 years, more than 70% of UNFPA’s
regular donations have come from six donors (see Table 2). The Netherlands and
Japan consistently have been the largest contributors. In years when the United
States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the American transfer has representedthth
about 8% of UNFPA’s regular budget, making it the 5 or 6 largest donor in those
years.
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors
(contribution as a % of UNFPA regular budget)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Netherland s 15.2% 14.3% 17.1% 19.3% 18.8% 21.1% 23.2% 21.7% 20.7% 20.9%
Japan 12.8% 17.9% 19.3% 18.4% 18.2% 15.2% 13.5% 11.9% 10.2% 9.2%
No rway 9.7% 10.0% 10.1% 8.8% 9.0% 9.7% 11.3% 10.0% 10.3% 11.3%
Denmark 11.5% 12.2% 11.2% 9.1% 8.8% 8.7% 8.7% 8.9% 8.4% 8.6%
U.K. 7.9% 8.4% 9.6% 8.5% 8.2% 10.2% 10.3% 11.1% 10.0% 10.5%
Sweden 5.6% 6.0% 6.8% 7.1% 6.2% 7.3% 8.2% 10.8% 13.3% 15.3%
United States8.5%7.3%0.0%8.2%8.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Source: UNFPA annual reports, 1997-2006.



UNFPA Program Priorities. Currently, UNFPA activities are focused in
seven program areas that support the broad strategy of improving reproductive
health:
!Preventing HIV/AIDS — promoting safer sexual behavior among
young people, ensuring that condoms are available and widely and
correctly used, empowering women to protect themselves and their
children, and encouraging men to take responsibility for preventing
the spread of HIV/AIDS;
!Making motherhood safer — expanding the availability of
emergency obstetric care for women who develop complications,
having skilled workers available, and meeting unmet needs for
contraceptive services;
!Supporting young people — providing accurate information,
counseling, and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases;
!Promoting gender equality — promoting legal and policy reforms,
supporting gender-sensitive data collection, and backing programs
that empower women economically;
!Assisting in emergencies — providing supplies and services to
protect reproductive health during disasters;
!Securing reproductive health supplies — coordinating the
delivery of supplies, forecasting needs, and building logistical
capacity at the country level; and
!Preventing and treating fistula5 — providing access to medical
care, increasing education and family planning services, postponing
pregnancy for young girls, improving girls’ nutrition, and repairing
physical and emotional damage.


5 Obstetric fistula occurs from prolonged child labor, particularly when labor lasts two days
or more. When a woman or girl is unable to push her baby out, the pressure from the baby’s
head can interrupt blood flow to tissues in the pelvic area. Ultimately, the woman passes the
baby after it dies, as the decomposed body is smaller than the live one. This can cause
incontinence, nerve damage, and chronic pain, which can make walking difficult. For more
information on UNFPA activities regarding fistula, see CRS Report RS21773, Reproductive
Health Problems in the World: Obstetric Fistula: Background Information and Responses,
by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.

Figure 1. UNFPA Program Functions, FY2006
Reproductive Health/FamilyPlanning
12. 5% 6. 5%
Population & Development
Program Coordination &Assistance
60 . 3 %20. 7%
Gender Equity & Women'sEmpowerment
Figure 2. UNFPA Assistance, by Region, FY2006


13. 2%13 . 2%
9. 0% Gl obal
Afric a
As ia
34.1%Latin AmericaEurope/Middle East
30 . 4 %
In the 13 years since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA has allocated roughly 60%
of its annual resources to reproductive health and family planning service programs
and 20% to strategies for population and development. The balance of UNFPA
spending focuses on coordinating activities, gender equity, and women’s
empowerment programs.6
Regional and Country Program Focus. Over the past decade, roughly
33% of UNFPA programs have been carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, with an
additional 28% focused in Asia. In 2006, UNFPA maintained its largest program in
Peru ($12 million), followed by Sudan ($11.3 million), Indonesia ($10.3 million),
6 UNFPA. Annual Report 2006. Additional data also drawn from prior-year annual reports.
UNFPA’s 2007 annual report has not yet been released.

Mozambique ($10.1 million), and Democratic Republic of the Congo ($9.4 million).
UNFPA program expenditures in China have ranged between $4 million and $5
million annually in recent years. In 2006, UNFPA contributed approximately $3.7
million to projects in China.
U.S. Policy Towards UNFPA
The United States was an important actor in the launch of UNFPA in 1969.
During the mid-to-late 1960s, Congress began to express heightened concern over
the impact of rapid population growth on development prospects in poor countries,
noting that the world’s population was growing by about 2% annually compared with
only a 1% growth in food production. In 1967, for the first time, Congress amended
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to specifically authorize and earmark funds for
population assistance programs, urging the United States especially to channel family
planning resources through the United Nations and other international organizations.
Some Members believed that such earmarks were necessary because the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had not
been giving the issue adequate attention.7
These initial U.S. contributions, however, were conditioned on the requirement
that other donors match the American payment in an equal amount. This incentive
helped UNFPA exceed its 1970 projected resource goal when 22 other countries
contributed a combined $7.7 million. In 1971, with the same matching requirement
tied to the U.S. pledge of $15 million, UNFPA received donations of $14.5 million
from 45 nations.8 As shown in Table 3, U.S. contributions continued to climb
throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, peaking in 1984 at $38.2 million. At the same
time, however, the number and size of transfers from other donors rose faster, so that
the share of UNFPA resources from the United States declined from 50% to around

27%.


The largest UNFPA contribution earmarked by Congress — $46 million — was
enacted in the FY1985 foreign aid appropriation, P.L. 98-461. However, only a
portion of these funds — $36 million — was transferred to the organization as U.S.
policy and its support for UNFPA shifted.
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA
In August 1984, government representatives from around the world met innd
Mexico City for the 2 U.N. International Conference on Population. At the
conference, the Reagan Administration announced new eligibility requirements for
organizations receiving U.S. bilateral population assistance funds. The new policy
stipulated that no non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that received population


7 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Foreign Assistance Act of 1967;
report to accompany S. 1872. S.Rept. 90-499. August 9, 1967, p. 24.
8 U.S. Agency for International Development. Development and Humanitarian Assistance;
FY1973 Program Presentation to Congress. p. L-15.

assistance funding from the United States could actively promote or perform abortion
as a family planning method other countries. This change became known as the
“Mexico City policy” and was applied by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush
Administrations for nine years, reversed by President Clinton in 1993, and re-9
instituted by President George W. Bush in 2001.
Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA
(current $ in millions)
CalendarU.S.% of TotalUNFPACalendarU.S.% of TotalUNFPA
Year Cont ri but i o n F unds Year Cont ri but i o n F unds

1968$1.779.3%1988$0.0 —


1969$2.379.3%1990$0.0 —


1970$7.550.0%1991$0.0 —


1971$14.250.0%1992$0.0 —


1972$14.046.1%1993$0.0 —


1973 $17.9 42.2% 1994 $40.0 15.1%


1974 $20.0 37.0% 1995 $35.0 11.2%


1975 $20.0 31.7% 1996 $22.8 7.4%


1976 $20.0 25.2% 1997 $25.0 8.6%


1977 $29.0 31.6% 1998 $20.0 7.2%


1978$28.027.2%1999$0.0 —


1979 $30.0 26.7% 2000 $21.5 8.1%


1980 $32.0 25.7% 2001 $21.5 8.0%


1981$32.026.3%2002$0.0 —


1982$33.826.1%2003$0.0 —


1983$33.826.1%2004$0.0 —


1984$38.227.5%2005$0.0 —


1985$36.027.3%2006$0.0 —


1986$0.0 — 2007$0.0 —


1987$0.0 — 2008$0.0 —


Source: Department of State and CRS percentage calculations since 1985.
Also at the 1984 Mexico City Conference, the Reagan Administration
announced it would establish requirements for UNFPA to provide assurances that the


9 For a discussion of the Mexico City policy and its eligibility requirements, see CRS Report
RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy, by Larry Nowels.

organization was not engaged in, or was not providing funds for, abortion or coercive
family planning programs. Concerns focused on UNFPA’s activities related to
China’s coercive family planning practices. UNFPA had launched its first program
in China in 1980, focusing largely on increasing Beijing’s capacity for data collection
and improving maternal and child health and family planning services. At the time,
the Administration reportedly held up $19 million (of $38 million allocated for
UNFPA for FY1984) until the organization could provide the necessary assurances.
These funds were released later in FY1984.
Following the Mexico City Conference, attention returned to the FY1985
UNFPA earmark of $46 million and how much the United States should transfer,
given the new White House policy. AID, which at the time maintained responsibility
for managing UNFPA contributions, undertook a review in early 1985 of UNFPA’s
program, especially in China, to determine whether the organization was involved in
any way with involuntary abortions.10 In March 1985 that review found that UNFPA
did not include involuntary abortion as part of its programs, and therefore did not
violate legislative restrictions or conditions announced at the Mexico City
Conference on funding organizations engaged in involuntary practices.11
As a result, UNFPA remained eligible for U.S. support but did not receive the
full earmarked amount of $46 million. On March 30, 1985, AID contributed $36
million to UNFPA, withholding $10 million “to express United States disapproval
of coercion in the implementation of the China population control program.”12 The
$10 million matched roughly the amount UNFPA spent annually in China. Because
AID wanted to re-program the $10 million for other bilateral population assistance
programs, the Administration needed to overcome the specific legislative earmark of
$46 million in the FY1985 appropriation. Accordingly, the White House requested
authority as part of an FY1985 supplemental appropriation submission to shift $10
million from UNFPA to other population aid groups.
The Kemp-Kasten Amendment
Rather than approve Administration’s request for authority to transfer the $10
million from UNFPA, Congress agreed to the Kemp-Kasten13 amendment as part of


10 More recently, responsibility for UNFPA voluntary contributions has shifted to the State
Department and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
11 Action Memorandum for the Administrator/Acting Director of IDCA. 1985 Funding for
the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), September 25, 1985, p. 1.
12 Ibid.
13 Initially, the amendment was referred to as the Kemp-Inouye provision, so named after
its original sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp, ranking Member of the House Foreign
Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member of
the Senate Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Inouye later opposed
the Administration’s decision not to fund UNFPA, as well as the fact that the decision was
delegated from the President to the Secretary of State to the Administrator for USAID. For
the next several years, Senator Bob Kasten, Chairman/Ranking Minority Member of the
Foreign Assistance Subcommittee, was a strong supporter of the amendment, and the
(continued...)

the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations bill, H.R. 2577. The amendment states
that U.S. funds would not be made available to “any organization or program which,
as determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”14 The House
Appropriations Committee did not provide details on what was meant by the phrase,
“support or participate in the management” of a program. However, in the
“additional views” section of the Committee Report, Representative Jack Kemp
stated that management of coercive programs may include providing resources to
collect and analyze data necessary to the enforcement of such a program; training of
the individuals who plan, manage, and carry out such a program, education and
publicity about the programs; assistance to the official bodies of government that are
charged with developing and implementing such a program; and other such
assi st ance.15
Congressman Kemp also stated that the amendment would most likely affect
U.S. funding of the UNFPA, “because of its involvement with the program of
coercive abortion in the People’s Republic of China.”16 The Kemp-Kasten
amendment was enacted on August 15, 1985, as part of the FY1985 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88).
Implementation and Court Challenges. Despite the directive from the
amendment that the President, or alternatively the Secretary of State, issue any
determination regarding the Kemp-Kasten amendment, President Reagan delegated
his authority to the Secretary of State on September 19, 1985,17 who in turn
authorized the re-delegation of this authority to the Director of the International
Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA).18 On September 25, 1985, IDCA
Administrator Peter McPherson announced the Administration’s determination that
UNFPA, because of its activities in China, was participating in the management of
a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. In letters to
congressional leaders, Administrator McPherson cited Representative Kemp’s
interpretation, as set out in his additional views in H.Rept. 99-142, of what
characterized the participation of an organization in a coercive abortion program.


13 (...continued)
provision came to be referred to as “Kemp-Kasten.”
14 S.Amdt. 338 to H.R. 2577, 99th Congress, June 20, 1985. Enacted as P.L. 99-88.
15 U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. Supplemental Appropriations, 1985, H.Rept.

99-142, May 22, 1985, p. 86.


16 Ibid.
17 A USAID memorandum drafted at the time noted that the Administration did not view
congressional expectations that the President (or if delegated, the Secretary of State) should
make the determination for UNFPA funding as legally binding. However, it was
“considered significant” by the Executive Branch.
18 IDCA had been established by Congress as a government entity to oversee and coordinate
the activities of all U.S. foreign aid agencies, and the IDCA Director served simultaneously
as the USAID Administrator.

The Administrator concluded that China’s “one-child- per-couple policy has resulted
in coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization.”19
The Administrator further announced that since the Kemp-Kasten amendment
and his determination under it now superceded the $46 million UNFPA earmark for
FY1985, USAID would reprogram $10 million for voluntary family planning
programs for use elsewhere in the world. He also stated that if Kemp-Inouye was
enacted again in FY1986 (see footnote 13), UNFPA could receive funds under only
three conditions: 1) UNFPA withdraws its program from China; 2) China would
begin to punish abuses concerning coercive abortion and involuntary sterilizations;
or 3) UNFPA “radically” changes its program in China, such as by supplying only
contraceptive materials.20
Almost immediately, the Population Institute, an NGO, filed suit against
Administrator McPherson and the U.S. government to block the redirection of
UNFPA funds and invalidate the determination. On August 12, 1986, the Court
upheld the Administration’s decision to withhold UNFPA funding.
From 1986 to 1992, USAID continued to request funds for UNFPA, although
with the understanding that a decision on whether to transfer the money would be
reviewed under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which Congress also
continued to enact each year in the foreign assistance appropriations. In each year,
USAID found that UNFPA was ineligible for U.S. support.
Reinterpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration. As
one of his first acts as chief executive, President Clinton reversed the Mexico City
policy of Presidents Reagan and Bush, and issued a determination finding that
UNFPA programs in China did not violate the terms of Kemp-Kasten. The policy
reversal was based on several factors, including:
!Ambiguity of the Kemp-Kasten language — The Administration
noted that the Court of Appeals, in considering the case brought by
the Population Institute, deferred to the USAID interpretation of
Kemp-Kasten because it was a “reasonable reading of an ambiguous
provision and did not otherwise conflict with the expressed intention
of Congress.” The Administration argued that because of this
ambiguity, the new Administration had a right to interpret Kemp-
Kasten for itself.
!Over-reliance on the 1985 statements by Representative Kemp
— The Administration pointed especially to the 1985 Court of
Appeals opinion that questioned the relevance of the additional
views of Representative Kemp interpreting the Kemp-Inouye
amendment. The Court observed that, although the Administration
considered Representative Kemp’s remarks as the clearest


19 Letter from IDCA Acting Director Peter McPherson to Senator Hatfield, Chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, September 25, 1985, p. 2.
20 Ibid, p. 2.

explanation of an “ambiguous term,” Congressman Kemp could not
convince his colleagues to adopt his views in the committee report
itself.
!Focus should be on the terms “coercive” and “involuntary” and
the intent of the organization in question — The Clinton
Administration believed that it was reasonable to apply the Kemp-
Kasten restrictions only in cases where the organization knowingly
and intentionally provided direct support for, or helped manage
people or agencies who were clearly engaged in, coercive abortion
or involuntary sterilization. The Administration concluded that
although it remained concerned about coercive practices in China,
it believed that UNFPA did not “knowingly” or “intentionally”
support directly such practices.21
The issue of coercive practices within China’s family planning program and the
role of UNFPA remained controversial throughout the Clinton Administration and
during the first year of the George W. Bush Presidency. Congress continued to
include Kemp-Kasten language in Foreign Operations Appropriations acts, and in
most years attached additional conditions on UNFPA contributions that required the
organization to (1) keep U.S. funds in a separate account, (2) not spend U.S. money
in China, and (3) to forego transfers from the United States equal to the amount
UNFPA allocated for its China program. In some years, the United States withheld
about $3.5 million from UNFPA, an amount that approximated the size of UNFPA’s
expenditures in China.
For a brief period in 1997, the controversy over whether to fund UNFPA
subsided when UNFPA’s program in China expired and new activities did not
resume immediately. Nevertheless, despite opposition from the United States,
UNFPA re-established a program in China, and in FY1999 appropriation legislation,
Congress prohibited all U.S. contributions to the organization. Congress restored
funding the following year, but with the requirement that an amount equal to UNFPA
expenditures in China be withheld. This resulted in a $3.5 million deduction in
FY2000 and FY2001. (For details on Administration actions and legislative
restrictions regarding UNFPA funding, 1985-2009, see Appendix A.)
George W. Bush Administration Reviews Kemp-Kasten
The first budget submitted by President Bush for FY2002 included a proposed
$25 million U.S. contribution to UNFPA. While the new Administration re-instated
the so-called “Mexico City policy” restrictions that applied to bilateral family
planning funds, there was no indication of a change in policy regarding UNFPA and
the Kemp-Kasten conditions attached to U.S. contributions. Subsequently, in the
FY2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations, Congress provided “not more than” $34
million for UNFPA. Although such language represented a ceiling for the amount
of funds for UNFPA, as opposed to a floor, or minimum amount that must be


21 These policy views are drawn from letters of USAID Administrator Brian Atwood to
Senator Helms, dated August 6 and September 10, 1993.

provided, the language was similar to prior year Foreign Operations bills that had
been fulfilled by the Clinton Administration, minus the withholding requirement.
However, in the face of the conflicting evidence released in late 2001 by the
Guy and Biegman investigation teams (see section “UNFPA and China” for further
details on the group’s findings), in mid-January 2002, the White House placed a hold
on U.S. contributions to UNFPA pending a review of the organization’s program in
China. In a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February
27, 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Arthur
Dewey noted that the legislative text regarding UNFPA funding — “not more than
$34 million” — gave the Administration considerable discretion over exactly how
much to provide UNFPA. While stating that the United States supported UNFPA’s
work worldwide to provide safe and voluntary family planning, enhance maternal and
infant health, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Administration remained
concerned about periodic reports of abuse and coercion in China’s family planning
program. Given new information and the requirements of the Kemp-Kasten
amendment, Assistant Secretary Dewey argued that the State Department was
obligated to investigate the matter further before releasing any funds in FY2002.22
State Department Assessment and Findings. The State Department
sent an investigation team to China for a two-week review of UNFPA programs on
May 13, 2002. The team was led by former Ambassador William Brown, and
included Bonnie Glick, a former State Department official, and Dr. Theodore Tong,
a public health professor at the University of Arizona. The State Department’s
assessment team filed its report with Secretary Powell on May 29, making a series
of findings and recommendations.23 The group found that:
!There was no evidence that UNFPA “has knowingly supported or
participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization” in China;
!Despite some relaxation of government restrictions in counties
where UNFPA operates, China maintained coercive elements in its
population programs in law and practice; and
!Chinese leaders viewed “population control as a high priority” and
remained concerned over implications for socioeconomic change.
On the basis of these findings, Ambassador Brown and his colleagues recommended
that:
!The United States should release not more than $34 million of
previously appropriated funds to UNFPA;


22 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund:
The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002.
23 Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team,
released by the Department of State on May 29, 2002. See [http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/
rpt/2002/12122.htm] for the report’s full text.

!Until China ends all forms of coercion in law and practice, no U.S.
government funds should be allocated to population programs in
China; and
!Appropriate resources, possibly from the United States, should be
allocated to monitor and evaluate Chinese population control
programs.
UNFPA Found in Violation of Kemp-Kasten. Subsequent to the findings
and recommendations of the Brown investigation, on July 22, 2002, Secretary of
State Powell, to whom the President had delegated the decision, announced that
UNFPA remained in violation of Kemp-Kasten and ineligible for U.S. funding. The
State Department’s analysis of the Secretary’s determination found that even though
UNFPA did not “knowingly” support or participate in a coercive practice, that alone
would not preclude the application of Kemp-Kasten. Instead, a finding that the
recipient of U.S. funds — in this case UNFPA — simply supports or participates in
such a program, whether knowingly or unknowingly, would trigger the restriction.
The assessment team found that the Chinese government imposes fines and penalties
on families (“social compensation fees”) that have children exceeding the number
approved by the government. The Department further noted that UNFPA had funded
computers and data-processing equipment that had helped strengthen the
management of the Chinese State Family Planning Commission. Beyond the
legitimate uses of these and other items financed by UNFPA, such equipment
facilitated, in the view of the State Department, China’s ability to impose social
compensation fees or perform abortions by coercion. The State Department analysis
concluded that UNFPA’s involvement in China’s family planning program “allows
the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive
abortion.”24
Subsequent Administration Reviews and Legislative Action
FY2009 Administration Request. The Administration requested $25
million for UNFPA funding if the organization is deemed eligible under the Kemp-
Kasten amendment. The funds would be appropriated under the Child Survival and
Health Programs account.25
FY2008 Appropriations and UNFPA Funding. The Administration
proposed that $25 million be made available to UNFPA if the organization becomes
eligible for funding under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds
would be drawn from Child Survival and Health Programs account.26


24 Department of State, Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes
Further Funding to UNFPA under P.L. 107-115. Released on July 18, 2002. See
[http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/other/12128.htm] for the full text.
25 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2009, p.

815, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf].


26 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2008, p.
(continued...)

On December 26, 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2764, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which directs that $40 million be made
available to UNFPA from the Global Health and Child Survival account, with no less
than $7 million derived from the International Organizations and Programs (IOP)
account. On June 26, 2008, a State Department official announced that UNFPA is
ineligible for FY2008 funding under the Kemp-Kasten amendment.27 The official
further stated, “We are prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future if its
program in China is ended or restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law, or if
China ends its program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”28
Section 660 of P.L. 110-161 requires the Secretary of State to submit a report
on UNFPA funding to the Appropriations Committees no later than four months after
the bill is enacted. According to the Act, the report to the Secretary of State “shall
indicate the amount of funds that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the
report is submitted for a country program in the People’s Republic of China.” If the
Secretary of State’s report indicates that UNFPA funds will be used for a program in
China, then the funds “shall be deducted from the funds made available to the
UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the
report is submitted.” The provision also states, “Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any organization by
reason of the application of another provision of this Act or any other provision of
law.”
Title III of P.L. 110-161 establishes a reporting requirement for Administration
decisions made under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The Act directs that any
determination “must be made no later than six months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and must be accompanied by a comprehensive analysis as well as the
complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.” In past years, for
example, the Administration has announced UNFPA eligibility for U.S. funding in
September or October of the appropriate fiscal year. In some cases, it did not provide
justification for its decision. The new provision requires the Administration to
announce its decision by June, and to provide comprehensive analysis and evidence
to support its position.
FY2007 Appropriations and UNFPA Funding. FY2007 foreign
operations programs were funded under the terms of a continuing resolution (P.L.
109-289, as amended by P.L. 110-5), which provided funding similar to the FY2006
level with some adjustments. As a result, the FY2007 funding level should be on
or around $22.5 million, the enacted level in FY2006. On September 6, 2007,
however, the Administration sent a letter to Members of Congress stating that
UNFPA is ineligible for FY2007 funds because of its support of coercive family


26 (...continued)

752, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf].


27 Press statement by Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, “Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),” U.S. Department of State, June 27, 2008,
available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/106348.htm].
28 Ibid.

planning practices in China.29 Unused FY2007 IOP funds designated for UNFPA
will likely be transferred to other family planning programs.
In its FY2007 budget request, for the second year in a row, the Administration
did not reserve funds for UNFPA funding in the IOP account. If UNFPA were found
eligible under Kemp-Kasten, approximately $25 million in UNFPA funding may be
drawn from the Administration’s proposed $357 million budget for international
family planning activities.
Additional Legislative Efforts in the 110th Congress. On May 2, 2007,
Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced H.R. 2114, the Repairing Young
Women’s Lives Around the World bill, which would provide U.S. voluntary
contributions to UNFPA only for the prevention, treatment, and repair of obstetric
fistula. The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In addition, on
June 7, 2007, Representative Joseph Crowley introduced H.R. 2604, the United
Nations Population Fund Women’s Health and Dignity bill. It would provide
financial and other support to the United Nations Population Fund, and was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On February 29, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton
introduced S. 2682, the United Nations Population Fund Restoration Act of 2008,
which provides that U.S. contributions made available for UNFPA shall be used for
specific purposes, including (1) providing equipment, medicine, and supplies to
ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care; (2) providing contraceptives to
prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; (3)
treating and preventing obstetric fistula; and (4) promoting the abandonment of
harmful traditional practices. The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Moreover, S.1744, the Global Democracy Promotion Act, prohibits the
application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign NGOs. It was
introduced by Senator Boxer on June 22, 2007, and referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations. The bill would require that foreign NGOs (1) shall not be
ineligible for assistance solely on the basis of health, medical, or counseling services
provided by organizations with non-U.S. government funds if the services do not
violate the laws of the country where they are being provided, and (2) shall not be
subject to requirements relating to the use of non-U.S. government funds for
advocacy and lobbying activities other than those that apply to U.S. NGOs.
A similar bill has been proposed in the House of Representatives. H.R. 619, the
Global Democracy Promotion Act, also prohibits the application of certain restrictive
eligibility requirements on foreign NGOs. Like S. 1744, the bill states that foreign
NGOs (1) shall not be ineligible for assistance solely on the basis of health, medical,
or counseling services with non-U.S. government funds if the services do not violate
the laws of the country where they are provided, and (2) shall not be subject to
requirements relating to the use of non-U.S. government funds for advocacy and
lobbying activities other than those that apply to U.S. NGOs. The bill was introduced
on January 22, 2007, by Representative Nita Lowey, and was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.


29 “White House: No U.N. Funding for China,” The Associated Press, September 7, 2007.

UNFPA and China
One issue that has been debated among many Members of Congress and past
and current Administrations involves whether, and to what extent, UNFPA programs
in China violate the Kemp-Kasten amendment. As previously mentioned, initial
UNFPA programs in China concentrated on bolstering China’s capacity for data
collection and analysis, and maternal and child health/family planning activities.
Following the Cairo population conference in 1994 and the conclusion of UNFPA’s
third Chinese program, UNFPA and Beijing officials began to discuss significant
changes for a fourth agreement that would more closely follow the principles set out
in Cairo.
The subsequent UNFPA program, launched in 1998, concentrated efforts in 32
counties where birth targets and quotas had been eliminated by the Chinese
government. The fourth program shifted from a more administrative family planning
approach — focusing on population control and imposed contraceptive methods and
orders — to an “integrated, client-oriented reproductive health approach in the
project counties” that included education and counseling regarding informed choice
of contraceptive methods and reproductive health rights. According to UNFPA,
service delivery points were upgraded to offer integrated reproductive health services
in both the Chinese State Family Planning Commission and the Ministry of Health.
UNFPA said that there had been a “downward trend” in the abortion ratio in these
counties, and that the organization had played a “catalytic role in introducing a
comprehensive, voluntary reproductive health approach,” that included rigorous
monitoring of the projects.30 The fifth program, covering the period 2003-2005,
expanded many of the earlier initiatives.
In June 2005, UNFPA approved a sixth program for China that began in 2006
and is to span five years. The $27 million program is to build on the policy changes
made in 1998 and includes two components. The reproductive health element seeks
to increase the utilization of high-quality, client-centered, gender-sensitive
reproductive health and family planning services, and to reduce the vulnerability and
risk behavior associated with HIV/AIDS among migrants, young people, and other
vulnerable groups. The population and development component centers on
strengthening the government’s capacity for addressing population-related policies,
especially those regarding gender, migration, and aging issues, and enhancing the
government’s ability to collect and apply surveillance data, particularly data related31


to HIV/AIDS.
30 UNFPA, Country Programme Outline for China. DP/FPA/CPO/CHN/5*, July 12, 2002.
UNFPA, Report of the International Review Team on the UNFPA China Country
Programme, October 2001.
31 UNFPA, Country Programme Document for China. DP/FPA/CPD/CHN/6, October 10,

2005.



Investigations of UNFPA Programs in China
During implementation of the fourth and fifth programs, UNFPA’s operations
in China have been closely scrutinized by several investigatory teams, including one
dispatched by the State Department in 2002. Most of these groups concluded that
UNFPA was not involved in supporting coercive or involuntary family planning
programs in China, although one — sponsored by the Population Research Institute
(PRI) — concluded otherwise. These conflicting reports, together with continuing
reviews of UNFPA practices in China and varying interpretations by U.S. officials,
sparked renewed controversy and extensive congressional debate beginning in 2001
over the appropriate role of the United States in financially supporting UNFPA
operations worldwide. The four non-U.S. government sponsored investigations came
to the following conclusions.
The Population Research Institute. PRI’s report concluded that UNFPA
“directly supports coercive family planning with funding, and through its complicity
with the implementation of policies which are fundamentally coercive in principle
and practice.” The PRI team, led by Josephine Guy, spent four days in Sihui County,
Guangdong Province, in late September 2001, conducting numerous interviews with
alleged victims and witnesses of coercive practices. According to the team’s
interview notes and videos, non-voluntary abortions and use of IUDs, mandatory
examinations, and punishment for non-compliance — both imprisonment and
economic fines — continued in this county which was among the 32 in which32
UNFPA supported programs.
The Biegman Group. This team found that UNFPA plays a “positive and
important catalytic role in the reform of reproductive health and family planning
services in China” and in moving China away from coercive family planning
practices and abuses. It recommended that UNFPA continue its program in China33
and expand its scope and resources in the future. This UNFPA-sponsored review
team, led by Ambassador Nicolaas Biegman, former Dutch Ambassador to the U.N.
and including diplomats from Honduras, the Czech Republic, and Botswana,
conducted a six-day investigation in October 2001, interviewing officials and
visiting sites in Beijing and in Sihui and Qianjiang Counties.
British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development,
and Reproductive Health. The British parliamentary team found that although
problems remain in some parts of China regarding reproductive rights, the Chinese
government was “moving in the right direction, with the support of UNFPA.” The


32 Population Research Institute, UNFPA, China, and Coercive Family Planning. December
12, 2001. See also two congressional hearings in which Josephine Guy testified: House
Committee on International Relations, Coercive Population Control in China: New
Evidence of Foreign Abortion and Forced Sterilization. Committee Hearing, October 17,
2001; and Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population
Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002.
33 UNFPA, Report of the International Review Team on the UNFPA China Country
Programme, October 2001. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the
U.N. Population Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002.

bi-partisan group spent a week in Beijing and Yunnan Province in April 2002,
reporting that UNFPA programs were having a “positive effect” in reforming
Chinese reproductive health services and offering women “a choice over their own
lives .”34
The Interfaith Delegation to China. This group returned from a September
2003 visit finding, among other things, that the Chinese government was taking steps
to end coercive family planning practices, that UNFPA was a major force in China’s
transition to voluntary policies, and that UNFPA did not support or participate in
managing China’s family planning program. While the group acknowledged that in
such a brief trip it could not gain a comprehensive view of China’s family planning
activities or the work of UNFPA, it felt confident in recommending that the United
States should maintain a policy of constructive engagement with China regarding
family planning matters, and that U.S. funding for UNFPA should be restored, and
the Kemp-Kasten amendment revised. The nine-member mission was sponsored by
Catholics for a Free Choice.35
Kemp-Kasten Application Beyond UNFPA
Critics of the Administration policy, including some Members of Congress,
have expressed concern over what they perceive to be a shift in the interpretation of
Kemp-Kasten restrictions related to UNFPA and other international organizations.
They point to a USAID notification to the Global Health Council that the agency
would not provide funding for the Council’s 31st annual meeting in June 2004
because UNFPA would be a participant. Some believe that this represented a State
Department warning to UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and other
organizations that continued involvement in joint programs with UNFPA might
jeopardize their funding support from the United States.36
In 2003, the State Department decided that it would fund a $1 million
HIV/AIDS program supporting African and Asian refugees only if the implementing
NGO group — Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium — did not include
Marie Stopes International among its members. Marie Stopes International is a
British-based reproductive health organization that is also a major implementing
partner of UNFPA in China. The State Department, while not making a legal
determination under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, felt that an action not to fund
Marie Stopes International would be the “approach most consistent with U.S.


34 China Mission Report by UK MP’s, 1st April - 9th April 2002. Found at [http://www.appg-
popdevr h.org.uk].
35 Catholics for a Free Choice. The United Nations Population Fund in China: A Catalyst
for Change. Report of an Interfaith Delegation to China. 2003.
36 Christopher Marquis. U.S. is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Population Unit. New
York Times, June 21, 2004. Letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell from Representatives
Maloney, Lee, Waxman, and Crowley, June 18, 2004.

policy.”37 On August 11, 2003, however, the Consortium declined to accept the $1
million grant due to the exclusion of Marie Stopes International.


37 Details for Funding the Reproductive Health Consortium (Taken Question), Office of the
State Department’s Spokesman, August 27, 2003.

CRS-21
Appendix A. UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions, FY1985-2009
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
Regular FY1985 appropriation:UNFPA received $36million, after the
— Not less than $46 million, or 16% of Population Assistance, whichever is lower, shall be madewithholding of $10
$26 million foravailable for UNFPA.million to express U.S.
UNFPA.****************************************disapproval of coercion
Supplemental FY1985 appropriation:in China’s family
— Kemp-Kasten conditions first enacted.planning program.
$38 million for — Kemp-Kasten conditions.No UNFPA funding.
iki/CRS-RL32703UNFPA. — No specific UNFPA provision.
g/w
s.or$32 million for — Kemp-Kasten conditions.
leakUNFPA, subject to — No specific UNFPA provision.No UNFPA funding.
Kemp-Kasten.
://wiki$25 million for
httpUNFPA, subject to — Kemp-Kasten conditions.No UNFPA funding
Kemp-Kasten. — No specific UNFPA provision.
$20 million for — Kemp-Kasten conditions.
UNFPA, subject to — No specific UNFPA provision.No UNFPA funding.


Kemp-Kasten.

CRS-22
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
Appropriation passed Congress but vetoed by the President:
— Not less than $15 million shall be made available for UNFPA, notwithstanding the Kemp-
Kasten conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.No UNFPA funding
$19.39 million for — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account andUNFPA does not commingle amounts with other sums.Earlier, $15 million
UNFPA, subject to — Entire $15 million shall be refunded if any used by UNFPA for family planning programs inappropriation for
Kemp-Kasten.China or used for any abortion related activity in any country.UNFPA vetoed by the
**************************************** President.
Subsequent appropriation signed by the President:
— Kemp-Kasten conditions.
iki/CRS-RL32703 — No specific UNFPA provision.
g/w$10 million for — Kemp-Kasten conditions.
s.orUNFPA, subject to — No specific UNFPA provision.No UNFPA funding
leakKemp-K asten
://wiki$10 million for — Kemp-Kasten conditions.
httpUNFPA, subject to — No specific UNFPA provision.No UNFPA funding
Kemp-Kasten.
No UNFPA — Kemp-Kasten conditions.No UNFPA funding.
funding. — No specific UNFPA provision.
— Not more than $40 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
$50 million for — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and doesnot commingle amounts with other sums.UNFPA received $40million from the United
UNFPA. — Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1994.States.


— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1994, regarding the amount of UNFPA’s
budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $10 million shall be deducted after March 1
from the $40 million U.S. contribution.

CRS-23
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— Not more than $50 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and doesUNFPA received $35
not commingle amounts with other sums.million from the United
$60 million for — Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1995.States, after a
UNFPA. — Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1995, regarding the amount of UNFPA’srescission of $15
budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $7 million shall be deducted after March 1million.
from the $50 million U.S. contribution.
****************************************
— In separate legislation, Congress rescinded $15 million of the original $50 million
iki/CRS-RL32703appropriation for UNFPA.
g/w — Not more than $30 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
s.or conditions.
leak — No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.UNFPA received $22.8
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and doesmillion from the United
://wiki$55 million fornot commingle amounts with other sums.
httpUNFPA. — Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1996.States, after a with-
— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1996, regarding the amount of UNFPA’sholding of $7.2 million.
budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $7 million shall be deducted after March 1
from the $30 million U.S. contribution.
— Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
$30 million for — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and doesnot commingle amounts with other sums.UNFPA received $25million from the United
UNFPA. — Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1997.States.


— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1997, regarding the amount of UNFPA’s
budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25
million U.S. contribution.

CRS-24
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.UNFPA received $20
$30 million forNo UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does notcommingle amounts with other sums.million from the United
UNFPA. — Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1998.States, after a with-
— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1998, regarding the amount of UNFPA’sholding of $5 million.
budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25
million U.S. contribution.
$25 million for — No funds may be made available for UNFPA.UNFPA received nofunding from the
iki/CRS-RL32703UNFPA. — Kemp-Kasten conditions included in enacted appropriation.United States.
g/w — Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
s.or conditions.
leak — No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.UNFPA received $21.5
://wiki$25 million for — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does notmillion from the United
httpUNFPA.commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.States, after a with-
— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2000, regarding the amount of UNFPA’sholding of $3.5 million.
budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25
million U.S. contribution.
— Not more than $25 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.UNFPA received $21.5
$25 million for — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does notmillion from the United
UNFPA.commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.States, after a with-
— Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2001, regarding the amount of UNFPA’sholding of $3.5 million.


budget for China. Whatever amount for China shall be deducted after March 1 from the $25
million U.S. contribution.

CRS-25
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— Not more than $34 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-KastenSecretary of State
conditions.determined that
UNFPA was not
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.eligible under Kemp-
Kasten conditions.
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.UNFPA received no
$25 million forfunding from theUnited States.
UNFPA.
FY2002 UNFPA funds
iki/CRS-RL32703reprogrammed forbilateral family
g/wplanning/ maternal &
s.orre-productive health
leakactivities in several
://wikideveloping countries.


http

CRS-26
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— Not more than $34 million in FY2002 appropriations and an equal amount from FY2003President did not issue
appropriations shall be available for UNFPA if the President determines that UNFPA no longera finding that UNFPA
supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntaryno longer supports or
sterilization.participates in the
management of a
— No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.program of coercive
abortion or involuntary
— Other abortion restrictions in this act or in the FY2002 appropriation shall apply to UNFPAsterilization.
funding.
$25 million — FY2002 conditions on UNFPA funding shall apply to FY2003 appropriations.UNFPA received nofunding from the
“reserve” availableUnited States.
iki/CRS-RL32703for UNFPA, — UNFPA funds deducted by the amount UNFPA spends in China in 2002 and 2003.
g/wsubject to Kemp-FY2003 UNFPA funds
s.orKasten conditions.reprogrammed for
leakassistance for
://wiki“vulnerable children”
httpand made available for
a new initiative for
assistance for young
women, mothers and
children who are
victims of trafficking in
persons.



CRS-27
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— Up to $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.Secretary of State
determined that
— FY2002 UNFPA funds shall be made available for family planning, maternal & reproductiveUNFPA was not
health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda,eligible under Kemp-
Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania, Romania, and Kazakhstan.Kasten conditions.
— FY2003 UNFPA funds shall be allocated for assistance for “vulnerable children” and madeUNFPA received no
available for a new initiative for assistance for young women, mothers and children who arefunding from the
victims of trafficking in persons.United States.
— No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.FY2004 UNFPA funds
iki/CRS-RL32703 — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does nottransferred to theEconomic Support
g/w$25 million reservecommingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions.Fund account, with the
s.oravailable forintention to use in
leakUNFPA, subject tosupport of anti-
://wikiKemp-Kastentrafficking in persons
httpconditions. programs .
Subsequently, FY2005
Foreign Operations
Appropriations directed
that of the FY2004
funds not provided to
UNFPA, $12.5 million
shall be available for
anti-trafficking
programs, and $12.5
million shall be
available for AID
family planning
programs.



CRS-28
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.
— No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.Secretary of State
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does notdetermined that
$25 million reservecommingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. — If FY2005 funds are not made available to UNFPA, they shall be transferred to the ChildUNFPA was noteligible under Kemp-
available forSurvival/Health account and used by USAID for family planning, maternal, and reproductiveKasten conditions.
UNFPA, subject tohealth activities.
Kemp-Kasten — Of the FY2004 funds earmarked for UNFPA, $12.5 million shall be available for anti-UNFPA received no
conditions.trafficking programs and $12.5 million shall be available for USAID for family planning, maternal,funding from the
and reproductive health activities in Albania, Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,United States.
iki/CRS-RL32703Ethiopia, Georgia, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Nigeria, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Tanzania,Uganda, and Ukraine.
g/w
s.or
leak
If UNFPA — $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.Secretary of State
://wikidetermined eligible — No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
httpfor U.S. funds — No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does notdetermined that
under the terms ofcommingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions.UNFPA was noteligible under Kemp-
Kemp-Kasten, $25 — Of the $34 million, $22.5 million shall be derived from the State Department’s InternationalKasten conditions.
million could beOrganization and Programs account (IOP), with the remainder from the Child Survival and Health
drawn fromaccount (CSH).UNFPA received no
USAID’s Child — Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the fundsfunding from the
Survival andshall be transferred to the CSH account, and shall be made available for family planning, andUnited States.


Health Account.maternal and reproductive health services.

CRS-29
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
Per H.R. 5522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Bill:
— $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.
— No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does notPending under
If UNFPAcommingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions. — Of the $34 million, $22.275 million shall be derived from the State Department’s IOP account,continuing resolution P.L. 109-289, as
determined eligiblewith the remainder from the Child Survival and Health account (CSH).amended by
for U.S. funds — Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the fundsP.L. 110-5
under the terms ofshall be transferred to the CSH account, and shall be made available for family planning, and
Kemp-Kasten, $25maternal and reproductive health services.Secretary of State
iki/CRS-RL32703million could bedetermined that
g/wdrawn from theUNFPA was not
s.orproposed familyeligible under Kemp-
leakplanning/Kasten conditions.
reproductive health
://wikiprogram budget of
http$357 million.UNFPA received no
funding from the
United States.



CRS-30
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
— $40 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.
— No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
— No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions.
— Not less than $7 million shall be derived from funding appropriated under the IOP, with the
If UNFPA isrest coming from the Global Health and Child Survival account. — Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available for UNFPA, the fundsSecretary of State
determined eligibleshall be transferred to the Global Health and Child Survival account, and shall be made availabledetermined that
for U.S. fundsfor family planning and maternal and reproductive health activities.UNFPA is not eligible
under the terms of — Report to Congress and Dollar-for-Dollar Withholding of Funds: No later than four monthsunder Kemp-Kasten
Kemp-Kasten, $25after enactment, the Secretary of State shall report to Appropriations Committees on the “amountconditions.
iki/CRS-RL32703million would bedrawn from theof funds that UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted for a country
g/wChild Survival andprogram in the People’s Republic of China.” If a report indicates that UNFPA plans to spendUNFPA will receive no
s.orHealth Programsfunds for a country program in China in the year of the report, the amount of funds that UNFPAfunding from the
leakplans to spend in China shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA after March 1
account.for obligation for the rest of the fiscal year. Moreover, nothing shall be construed to limit theUnited States.


://wikiauthority of the President to deny funds to any organization due to the application of another law or
http provision.
— Requires the Administration to make Kemp-Kasten determinations within six months of the
enactment of the Act, and directs that the decision must be accompanied by “a comprehensive
analysis as well as the complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.”

CRS-31
calAdministrationCongressional Action/Legislative Conditions EnactedFunding and Policy
rBudget RequestOutcome
If UNFPA is
determined eligible
for U.S. funds
under the terms of
Kemp-Kasten, $25To be determinedTo be determined


million would be
drawn from the
Child Survival and
Health Programs
account.
iki/CRS-RL32703
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http