White House Decision on UNFPA Funding Lingers, Looms

Related Items

Contact an expert: Sarah Craven, UNFPA Sally Ethelston, PAI Click here to read the latest coverage on UNFPA funding Click here to read facts about UNFPA's activities in China

Family Planning Funds, Women’s Lives in the Balance

June 7, 2002 – A crucial decision by the White House about whether to provide critically needed funds for life-saving international family planning efforts is expected some time in June. Ignoring overwhelming, bipartisan Congressional approval late last year of funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Administration of President George W. Bush has held up funding for the world’s international family planning leader based on vague claims by a small organization that is ardently opposed to family planning.

Five months later, UNFPA programs are feeling the effects of the $34 million funding freeze by the United States. Recently, UNFPA said that the delay in US funding was causing cuts in personnel and programs. If the Bush Administration denies funding altogether, UNFPA estimates that it could lead to as many as “2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4700 maternal deaths and 77000 infant and child deaths.”

Administration Assessment Team

During the last two weeks of May, an expert team was appointed and sent by the Bush Administration to visit China to provide an objective assessment of the activities of UNFPA and to provide guidance to the Administration about whether or not UNFPA’s program in China is in compliance with US law (Kemp-Kasten).

The assessment team members are: Ambassador William Brown, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ambassador to Thailand and Israel, who currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Ms. Bonnie Glick, who served 11 years as a career Foreign Service Officer with overseas postings in Ethiopia and Nicaragua, as well as with the State Department, White House, and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; and Dr. Theodore Tong, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs and Professor of Public Health at the University of Arizona.

Reportedly, the team has submitted its major findings to the Administration, which is expected to determine by the end of June whether funding for UNFPA is consistent with the so-called “Kemp-Kasten” amendment.

About Kemp-Kasten

In 1985 the Kemp-Kasten amendment was enacted by Congress to bar US funding for any organization that the President determines “supports or participates in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” Overruling the finding of the US Agency for International Development to the contrary, on the grounds that UNFPA’s mere presence in China constituted “support” of coercive practices, the Reagan Administration invoked Kemp-Kasten and cut off funds for UNFPA in fiscal 1985. The Administration George H.W. Bush continued the funding ban. Early in his Administration, President Clinton ruled that UNFPA activities in China were not in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment.

White House Flip Flop

It was expected initially that President George W. Bush would return to the policy of his father and President Reagan. However, in 2001 the Administration not only requested funding in its fiscal 2002 budget approved funding for UNFPA, but also approved fiscal 2001 funding and allocated late last year a supplemental contribution of $600,000 to support the agency’s efforts to provide family planning and related health care to refugees of the conflict in Afghanistan.

An expectation of continued funding was further burnished when the Administration agreed along with House and Senate negotiators to a fiscal 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that awarded UNFPA $34 million – an increase of $9 million over fiscal 2001 funding.

However, only weeks after this agreement was reached, the Administration reneged on its agreement with Congressional leaders and announced that it was freezing funds for UNFPA.

The impetus for the White House reversal was fuelled by vague claims about UNFPA in a report issued by an obscure anti-family planning organization known as Population Research International. The PRI report was given voice by long-time UNFPA foe, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), who wrote to President Bush the day after his Congressional colleagues overwhelmingly rejected his position and supported UNFPA funding, Congressman Smith asked President Bush to withhold UNFPA funds because the agency operates a small program in China.

UNFPA’s China Program – A Force for Progress

UNFPA’s program in China, approved by the Fund's Executive Board of 36-member States, adheres strictly to the highest standards of voluntarism and human rights. At the insistence of UNFPA, Chinese authorities have agreed to abolish family planning quotas and targets in the 32 Chinese counties in which it operates. An independent fact-finding mission in October 2001 found that found that the Fund's program in China is playing an important catalytic role in the reform of reproductive health services from an administrative approach to a client-oriented approach that promotes informed choice of contraceptive methods through information, education and counseling.

The positive impact of UNFPA’s effort in China was independently documented in the State Department’s 2001 Human Rights Report on China, which found that:

“In late 1998, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) launched a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties. Under this program, local officials must address family planning and reproductive health issues solely through the use of voluntary measures, emphasizing education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development. The SFPC worked closely with the UNFPA to prepare informational materials and to provide training for officials and the general public in the project counties.

In all the project counties, the local governments have informed the general public about the UNFPA program and have eliminated the system of overall countywide birth and population targets that tends to generate coercive enforcement. Economic fines assessed on individual families for over-quota children, however, remain. Central authorities have welcomed foreign delegations to inspect the UNFPA project counties, and foreign diplomats visited several counties during the year. Thanks to the shift in SFPC priorities, UNFPA reports that the number of women countrywide who make their own contraceptive choices rose from 53 percent in 1998 to 83 percent in 2000."

Congressional Action to Release Funds for UNFPA

Since the White House reversed course on its agreement with key Congressional appropriators, efforts have been mounted by furious Members of Congress to require the Administration to release UNFPA funds. Thursday the Senate passed a more than $31.4 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill (HR 4775) which includes a provision sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would require the president to release the $34 million by July 10 unless otherwise prohibited by law.

The emergency appropriations bill passed by the House does not include any language about UNFPA, although concerted efforts were made and an important victory for UNFPA was won in the House Appropriations Committee. Subsequently, the House leadership worked aggressively to block the pro-UNFPA language and the bill ended up silent on the issue.

A conference committee will now need to work out the differences between the two bills -- including addressing the UNFPA provision.

In addition, Members in both the House and Senate are working on efforts to ensure funding for UNFPA in the fiscal 2003 funding cycle.

To learn more about the overwhelming editorial support in favor of continued UNFPA funding, click here. Similarly, you can click here to learn about broad, bipartisan Congressional support in favor of the immediate release of UNFPA funds.