Legislative Background: The Kemp-Kasten Amendment

For more information, please contact Kimberley Cline or Sally Ethelston, or see the PAI Web site at http://www.populationaction.org.

NB: Kemp-Kasten should not be confused with the Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City policy), an executive branch policy in force during the Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations, and reimposed by President Bush in 2001 on his first business day in office.

June 2003 — The Bush administration justified the de-funding of UNFPA by authority granted to the President under a little-known provision of law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which was first incorporated in foreign aid appropriations bills as an amendment in 1985. Kemp-Kasten prohibits foreign aid funding for any organization that, as determined by the President, "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." The Reagan and Bush I administrations interpreted the language very broadly, resulting in presidential determination that UNFPA was ineligible for funding because of its projects in China.

That same year, a review of UNFPA programs by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) determined that UNFPA neither funds abortions nor supports coercive family planning practices through its programs. Since then, various studies of China's family planning program have documented its compulsory nature and the presence of coercion in China's program overall, but UNFPA has never been implicated in any coercive practices. These findings had no impact on the Reagan and Bush administrations however, and UNFPA was still denied funding.

The Clinton Administration formally announced it would resume funding UNFPA in May of 1993. Using its authority under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, President Clinton gave $14.5 million to UNFPA the following August. In subsequent years, U.S. funding for UNFPA has fluctuated, although a contribution has been made in every year except 1999.

In 2001, the Bush Administration reviewed UNFPA's activities and determined UNFPA was not in violation of Kemp-Kasten, and provided $21.5 million to UNFPA. Yet in July 2002, President Bush changed his mind, and invoked Kemp-Kasten, canceling the $34 million appropriated by Congress for UNFPA. There was no change in UNFPA's activities during this time.

The widely divergent interpretations of Kemp-Kasten that have been employed over the years vividly illustrate the serious need to clarify the intent of the provision, so that the fate of the U.S. contribution is not dependent upon who occupies the White House.

A review of the analysis released by the State Department justifying the application of Kemp-Kasten in 2002 indicates that the principal reason for denying funds to UNFPA is the existence of regulations in China that require families to pay "social compensation fees" for unauthorized or "out-of-plan births." Given that such fees or fines are sometimes significant, the analysis concludes that such fines will therefore force women to have abortions. Thus, by virtue of working with an agency of the Chinese government operating in such a legal environment, UNFPA is culpable and, therefore, in violation of the Kemp-Kasten provision.

Under this logic, any recipient of U.S. funds should be disqualified if they cooperate with Chinese government institutions judged to be involved in the enforcement of the "one-child" policy. Many multilateral and other U.S.-supported organizations (such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank) have ongoing relationships with the same Chinese agencies, and many even work on reproductive health-related programs. In fact, last year the White House approved a $15 million joint initiative between the National Institutes of Health and the Chinese Ministry of Health to address HIV/AIDS.

The disparate treatment of UNFPA relative to other multilateral and U.S. organizations illustrates unmistakably that President Bush's decision to defund UNFPA was clearly not about China but about politics, which unfortunately come with a human cost. Regrettably, without U.S. support, the programs that will suffer most are those in the 150 other countries where UNFPA works, including UNFPA's international AIDS prevention programs.

Saving lives or playing politics?

This decision was clearly not about China but about politics, which unfortunately come with a human cost. Without U.S. support, the programs that will suffer most are those in the 140 other countries where UNFPA works. UNFPA estimates that the $34 million could prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 77,000 infant and child deaths, and 4,700 maternal deaths.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a PAI expert, please contact:

Kimberley Cline (202) 557-3423

Sally Ethelston (202) 557-3418

Further documentation on the Administration's decision can also be found on our Web site at www.populationaction.org.

[show print version] [back]