Order Code RL32703
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The U.N. Population Fund:
Background and the U.S. Funding Debate
December 16, 2004
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

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 2003, the
organization provided services in 136 developing and transition countries, with funds
totaling $398 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 149
nations.
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 that
continues to guide current family planning and reproductive health policies, including
the work of UNFPA. The Plan of Action integrated population concerns into the
broad context of development, concluding that education and health, including
reproductive health, were prerequisites for sustainable development.
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. In years during
the last decade when the United States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the
American transfer has represented about 8% of UNFPA’s regular budget, making it
the 5th or 6th largest donor.
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.
But 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
U.S. 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 12 of the past 20 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 so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment banning U.S. aid to
organizations involved in the management of coercive family planning programs.
For the past three years, the Bush Administration has transferred enacted UNFPA
appropriations to other foreign aid activities.
This report will be updated as policy changes or congressional action occur.

---

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Budget Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
UNFPA Program Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Regional and Country Program Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S. Policy Towards UNFPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Kemp-Kasten Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Implementation and Court Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Continued Application of Kemp-Kasten, 1986-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Re-Interpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration . . . . . . . 14
Fourth and Fifth UNFPA Programs in China and Conflicting Evaluations
. . . 16
Investigations of UNFPA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Population Research Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Biegman Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
British All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population,
Development, and Reproductive Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Interfaith Delegation to China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bush Administration Reviews of Kemp-Kasten and UNFPA Contributions . . 18
State Department Assessment and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
UNFPA Found in Violation of Kemp-Kasten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Subsequent Administration Reviews and Legislative Action . . . . . . . 20
Recent Efforts to Amend Kemp-Kasten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Current Status: Administration Determination for FY2004 and the
FY2005 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Kemp-Kasten Application Beyond UNFPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix — UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions,
1985-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Tables
Table 1. UNFPA Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

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 2003, the organization provided services in 136
developing and transition countries, with funds totaling $398 million, drawn
exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 149 nations and foundations.
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 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 eight of the past 20 years, the United States has been one of the leading
contributors to UNFPA. For the other 12 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. Most recently, the Bush Administration for the past three
years has found UNFPA to be ineligible for U.S. funding and transferred proposed
annual contributions of between $25 and $34 million to other foreign aid activities.
Prior to September 30, 2005, the Administration will review UNFPA programs in
China and determine whether the organization will receive $34 million earmarked
by Congress. Future UNFPA funding questions are also likely to be raised during the
109th Congress when lawmakers take up the Foreign Operations appropriation bill.
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 U.N. 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

---

CRS-2
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 U.S. 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 below.)
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.

---

CRS-3
! 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
organizations.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
UNFPA Operations Today
Budget Trends. As noted above, with a budget of $398 million in 2003,
UNFPA funded programs in 136 countries. This was the organization’s largest
budget in recent years (Table 1). UNFPA derives most of its income from voluntary
2 UNFPA. What it Is; What it Does. 1983
3 See, Population and Development: The 1994 Cairo Conference, by Curt Tarnoff. CRS
Report 94-533, August 25, 1994 (archived; available on request from author).
4 UNFPA Background. Found at UNFPA website.

---

CRS-4
contributions to its regular budget which
Table 1. UNFPA Income
finances continuing core country programs
($s - millions)
and the organization’s administrative costs.
Supple-
A growing but less flexible source of
Year
Regular
Total
mental
revenue has been from supplementary
donations that are provided either for cost-
97
$293
$33
$326
sharing purposes or for placement in trust
98
$273
$36
$309
funds. Through supplementary resource
transfers, donors can earmark exactly how
99
$250
$38
$288
their contributions will be spent. In 2000,
00
$262
$104
$366
for example, the Netherlands provided $41
million specifically to procure contraceptive
01
$268
$128
$396
commodities.
02
$260
$113
$373
While UNFPA receives voluntary
03
$292
$106
$398
contributions from many countries and some
Source: UNFPA
private foundations — 149 in 2003, the
highest number ever — most of its income
for regular country programs and operating expenses comes from a handful of
donors. During the past seven years, more than two-thirds of UNFPA’s regular
donations have come from five donors. 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 represented about 8% of UNFPA’s
regular budget, making it the 5th or 6th largest donor.
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors
(contribution as a % of UNFPA regular budget)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Netherlands
15.2%
14.3%
17.1%
19.3%
18.8%
21.1%
23.2%
Japan
12.8%
17.9%
19.3%
18.4%
18.2%
15.2%
13.5%
Norway
9.7%
10.0%
10.1%
8.8%
9.0%
9.7%
11.3%
Denmark
11.5%
12.2%
11.2%
9.1%
8.8%
8.7%
8.7%
U.K.
7.9%
8.4%
9.6%
8.5%
8.2%
10.2%
10.3%
U.S.
8.5%
7.3%
0.0%
8.2%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Source: UNFPA
UNFPA Program Priorities. Currently UNFPA activities are focused on
eight strategy areas:
! Improving reproductive health — access to a range of safe and
affordable contraceptive methods, prenatal care, attended deliveries,

---

CRS-5
emergency obstetric and post-natal care, and prevention of sexually
transmitted diseases;
! Supporting young people — providing accurate information,
counseling, and services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases;
! 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;
! Promoting gender equality — promoting legal and policy reforms,
supporting gender-sensitive data collection, and backing programs
that empower women economically;
! Securing reproductive health supplies — coordinating the
delivery of supplies, forecasting needs, and building logistical
capacity at the country level;
! Assisting in emergencies — providing supplies and services to
protect reproductive health during disasters;
! Advancing sustainable development — assisting countries to
collect and analyze population data to integrate population and
development strategies; and
! Building support — partnering with other U.N. organizations,
governments, NGOs, foundations, and the private sector to increase
awareness.
UNFPA Program Functions 2003
61.4%
6.7%
12.1%
19.8%
Reproductive Health/Family Planning
Pop & Development
Advocacy
Multi Sector

---

CRS-6
UNFPA Regional Focus 2003
Africa
36.1%
30.3%
Asia
13.0%
7.6%
13.0%
Global
Latin America
Europe/Mid East
In the ten years since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA has allocated roughly two-
thirds 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 advocacy activities and multisectoral programs.5
Regional and Country Program Focus. Over the past decade, roughly
one-third of UNFPA programs have been carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, with an
additional 30% focused in Asia. In 2003, UNFPA maintained its largest program in
Bangladesh ($21.5 million), followed by Guatemala ($10.3 million), Mozambique
($9 million), India ($6.8 million), and Nigeria ($6.6 million). UNFPA program
expenditures in China have ranged between $4 million and $5 million annually in
recent years.
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 Agency for International Development (AID) had not been
giving the issue adequate attention.6
5 UNFPA. Annual Report 2003. Additional data also drawn from prior-year annual reports.
6 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.

---

CRS-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.7 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 — $36 million — were transferred to the organization as U.S.
policy and its support for UNFPA shifted.
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA
In August 1984, government representatives from around the world met in
Mexico City for the 2nd U.N. International Conference on Population. At that
conference, the Reagan Administration announced new eligibility requirements for
organizations receiving U.S. bilateral population assistance funds. This change
became known as the “Mexico City policy” and was applied by the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush Administrations for nine years, reversed by President Clinton in
1993, and re-instated by President George W. Bush in 2001.8
Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA
($s — millions)
% of Total
% of Total
Calendar
U.S.
Calendar
U.S.
UNFPA
UNFPA
Year
Contribution
Year
Contribution
Funds
Funds
1968
$1.7
79.3%
1986
$0.0
—
1969
$2.3
79.3%
1987
$0.0
—
1970
$7.5
50.0%
1988
$0.0
—
1971
$14.2
50.0%
1990
$0.0
—
1972
$14.0
46.1%
1991
$0.0
—
1973
$17.9
42.2%
1992
$0.0
—
7 Agency for International Development. Development and Humanitarian Assistance;
FY1973 Program Presentation to Congress. p. L-15.
8 For a discussion of the Mexico City policy and its eligibility requirements, see CRS
Report RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy.

---

CRS-8
% of Total
% of Total
Calendar
U.S.
Calendar
U.S.
UNFPA
UNFPA
Year
Contribution
Year
Contribution
Funds
Funds
1974
$20.0
37.0%
1993
$0.0
—
1975
$20.0
31.7%
1994
$40.0
15.1%
1976
$20.0
25.2%
1995
$35.0
11.2%
1977
$29.0
31.6%
1996
$22.8
7.4%
1978
$28.0
27.2%
1997
$25.0
8.6%
1979
$30.0
26.7%
1998
$20.0
7.2%
1980
$32.0
25.7%
1999
$0.0
—
1981
$32.0
26.3%
2000
$21.5
8.1%
1982
$33.8
26.1%
2001
$21.5
8.0%
1983
$33.8
26.1%
2002
$0.0
—
1984
$38.2
27.5%
2003
$0.0
—
1985
$36.0
27.3%
2004
$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
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,9 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. In March 1985 that review found that UNFPA
did not include involuntary abortion as part of its programs, and therefore did not
9 More recently, responsibility for UNFPA voluntary contributions has shifted to the State
Department and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.

---

CRS-9
violate legislative restrictions or conditions announced at the Mexico City conference
on funding organizations engaged in involuntary practices.10
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.”11 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 Amendment12
Instead of approving the Administration’s request for authority to re-program
the $10 million from UNFPA, the House Appropriations Committee adopted in May
1985 an amendment to H.R. 2577, the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriation bill, that
would prohibit U.S. funds to an organization or program that “supports or
participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.” The Committee’s
report noted that the FY1985 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 98-473) had included
language blocking funds to any country or organization that included involuntary
abortions as part of its population planning program.13 “The new provision,” the
Committee continued, “amends the FY1985 Act by adding language that also
prohibits the use of funds for organizations or programs that support or participate
in the management of a program of coercive abortion.”14
10 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.
11 Ibid.
12 Initially in 1984, the amendment was referred to as the Kemp-Inouye provision, so named
after its original sponsors, Representative Kemp, ranking Member of the House Foreign
Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Inouye, Ranking Member of the
Senate Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Inouye became
associated with the provision when he sponsored an amendment changing the House-passed
language during Senate Committee consideration. Senator Inouye, however, later opposed
the Administration’s determination issued pursuant to the amendment and the fact that the
decision was delegated from the President to the Secretary of State to the Administrator for
the Agency for International Development (AID). (Senator Inouye’s amendment to the
original Kemp language required the determination to be made by the President.) For the
next several years, Senator Kasten, Chairman/Ranking Minority Member of the Foreign
Assistance Subcommittee, was a strong supporter of retaining the amendment, and the
provision came to be referred to as “Kemp-Kasten.”
13 AID had determined in March 1985 that UNFPA did not fall under this restriction.
14 U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. Supplemental Appropriations, 1985, House
Report 99-142, May 22, 1985, p. 86.

---

CRS-10
Although the Committee provided no other details on what it meant by the term,
“support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion,”
Representative Kemp, sponsor of the amendment, said, in the “additional views”
section of the Committee report, that the participation in the management of such a
program would include:
providing resources to collect and analyze the 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 assistance.15
Congressman Kemp went on to state that his amendment would add to the
restrictions enacted in P.L. 98-473, and that “the debate in Committee clearly
indicated that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities would be
immediately affected by this amendment because of its involvement with the
program of coercive abortion in the People’s Republic of China.”16
Following House passage of H.R. 2577, the Senate Appropriations Committee
reported the bill in June 1985, including an amendment to the Kemp language.
Senator Inouye, ranking Member of the Foreign Assistance Subcommittee, sponsored
new text that required any determination made under the Kemp amendment to be
issued by the President. Senator Inouye believed that the decision whether to release
to UNFPA or reprogram the withheld $10 million might be different depending on
where the decision was made.
I believe that, were this question to be resolved at a level in our Government
where political pressures do not exert an undue influence, it would be found that
the Government of the People’s Republic has not falsified its assurances to our
Government; it would be found that the UNFPA has not engaged in prevarication
but has accurately described its program; and it would be found that AID’s
internal review did not distort UNFPA’s role in the population planning
programs of the People’s Republic of China....The committee believes that this
issue [of specifying the President as the one to make the determination] is of
great significance, not only in relation to continued U.S. participation in
population planning programs, but also in terms of its potential impact on the
growing bilateral relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the
United States. Consequently, the committee has directed that the President of the
United States, or if he chooses to delegate this responsibility, the Secretary of
State make this determination.17
Unlike Representative Kemp, Senator Inouye believed, as suggested in his remarks,
that the addition of the Kemp-Inouye amendment (as it was then known — see
footnote 11) would not have any impact on U.S. contributions to UNFPA. He argued
that AID should release the final $10 million to the organization. Senator Inouye also
offered a different interpretation, with fewer details, from that put forward by
15 Ibid., p. 232.
16 Ibid.
17 Congressional Record, June 20, 1985, p. S8526, daily edition.

---

CRS-11
Representative Kemp regarding the criteria with which to decide whether to issue a
determination.
If the President determines that: One, the People’s Republic of China does have
a population planning program which includes coercive abortion; and two, the
UNFPA supports or participates in the management of that program, funding to
the UNFPA would be cut off. If the President does not reach that determination,
funding which has been withheld would, under the law, be released to the
UNFPA.18
Following adoption of one further amendment by Senator Helms — adding the
words “or involuntary sterilization” to the Kemp-Inouye language — the Senate
adopted H.R. 2577. The Kemp-Inouye amendment, as approved by the Senate, was
included by the conference committee and the language became law on August 15,
1985 (P.L. 99-88).
Implementation and Court Challenges
Despite the directive that the President, or alternatively the Secretary of State,
issue any determination regarding the Kemp-Inouye amendment, President Reagan
delegated his authority to the Secretary of State on September 19, 1985, who in turn
authorized the re-delegation of this authority to the Director of the International
Development Cooperation Agency.19 An AID memorandum drafted for the
Administrator at that time noted that congressional statements regarding the
expectation that the President, or if delegated, the Secretary of State, make the
determination were not legally binding, but “considered significant” by the Executive
branch.20
On September 25, 1985, Administrator 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 House
Report 99-142, of what characterized the participation of an organization in a
coercive abortion program. The Administrator concluded that China’s “one-child-
per-couple policy has resulted in coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization.”
Because UNFPA assists China, he continued,
in the general management areas described in Congressman Kemp’s Additional
Views...and since we have concluded that sufficient evidence exists to indicate
18 Ibid.
19 IDCA had been established by Congress as a government entity to oversee and coordinate
the activities of all U.S. foreign aid agencies. In practice, however, it exercised little
influence and the IDCA Director served simultaneously as the AID Administrator. As such,
this re-delegation moved the decision point to Peter McPherson, the AID Administrator and
the Acting IDCA Director.
20 Action Memorandum for the Administrator/Acting Director of IDCA, September 25,
1985, p. 4.

---

CRS-12
that implementation of the population program of the Government of the
People’s Republic of China results in such abuses, we have no alternative but to
bar further obligation of funds in Fiscal Year 1985 to the UNFPA.21
The Administrator further announced that since the Kemp-Inouye amendment and
his determination under it now superceded the $46 million UNFPA earmark for
FY1985, AID would reprogram $10 million for voluntary family planning programs
for use elsewhere in the world. He also put on the record that if Kemp-Inouye was
enacted again in FY1986, UNFPA could receive funds under only three conditions:
! UNFPA withdraws its program from China;
! China would begin to punish abuses concerning coercive abortion
and involuntary sterilizations; or
! UNFPA “radically” changes its program in China, such as by
supplying only contraceptive materials.22
Almost immediately, the Population Institute filed suit against Administrator
McPherson and the U.S. Government to block the re-programming of UNFPA funds
and invalidate the determination. Although the Population Institute lost its suit, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia issued an injunction on November
13, 1985, blocking AID from proceeding with the planned reprogramming, while the
Population Institute prepared an appeal.
After reviewing the Court’s opinion and noting concerns expressed by the Court
of Appeals, Administrator McPherson reviewed his September 25 determination and
issued another, more detailed statement on November 25, 1985. In it, he decided to
adhere to the earlier determination, but he addressed several issues that had not been
raised in previous statements and letters. First, he noted that in deciding how to
apply the Kemp-Inouye amendment, the objective had been to have a “measured
foreign policy impact;” to express to China and UNFPA strong U.S. objections to
coercive practices in China, “while not adversely affecting the broader strategic
relationship” between the two countries and not undermining UNFPA’s work in
other nations.23
The Administrator also acknowledged the ambiguity of the statute, referring to
the uncertainty over whether it meant “supports or participates in the management
of a program;” or “supports...a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization;” or “participates in the management” of such a program. The
Administrator concluded that it was necessary to examine the legislative history in
order to determine the intent of Congress. In addition to citing the additional remarks
made by Representative Kemp in the House Committee report, Administrator
McPherson emphasized the House Committee’s comments that the Kemp
amendment represented a “new prohibition.” Therefore, AID believed the
21 Letter from IDCA Acting Director Peter McPherson to Senator Hatfield, Chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, September 25, 1985, p. 2.
22 Ibid., p. 2.
23 Statement of M. Peter McPherson, Administrator, Agency for International Development,
November 25, 1985, p. 1.

---

CRS-13
Committee intended the restriction to be broader than existing law which simply
banned funds to an organization that provided direct support for abortion.24 Based
on this, the Administrator argued that it was not necessary to find that UNFPA
actually performs or directly finances involuntary abortions in China in order to
prohibit funding to UNFPA.25
Administrator McPherson further argued that Senator Inouye’s floor statement
on what standards should be applied supported the determination to withhold
UNFPA funding (see footnote 11, above). He underscored Senator Inouye’s words
that a determination must find that China’s population program “includes” coercive
abortion, which to the Administrator suggested the existence of a broader program
within which coercive practices might be one of many elements. Even though
UNFPA might not be directly involved in these coercive elements of the China
program, it did participate in the management of the broader China population
program. Therefore, AID concluded that by applying Senator Inouye’s explanation,
the agency had no choice but to withhold assistance.26
Administrator McPherson was also guided by other actions taken by Congress
in 1985, including:
! House adoption on July 10 of an amendment to the FY1986 foreign
aid authorization bill sponsored by Representative Smith, finding
that China “has systematically employed coercive abortion and
coercive sterilization as a means of enforcing that government’s one-
child-per-couple policy.”
! Two Senate-passed amendments to the same bill concerning aid to
countries that permit infanticide or coerced abortion (Senator Helms)
and a prohibition on aid to family planning programs in China
(Senator Kassebaum).
! exclusion of a UNFPA earmark in the FY1986 foreign aid
authorization for the first time in several years.
Although these amendments regarding China and UNFPA were dropped from the
enacted foreign aid authorization bill, Administrator McPherson concluded that,
“This record demonstrated to me, however, the overwhelming attitude in Congress
regarding coercion, including involuntary abortion and sterilization in the China
24 As discussed above, however, the House Committee report referred to the Kemp
amendment as a “new provision,” not a “new prohibition.” It appears that the
Administrator’s memorandum mis-quoted the Committee’s report language.
25 Statement of M. Peter McPherson, Administrator, Agency for International Development,
November 25, 1985, p. 4.
26 Ibid., p. 7.

---

CRS-14
population control program and the desire to disassociate United States funding from
it.”27
Despite Chinese government assertions that its population program was totally
voluntary, Administrator McPherson found that the one-child-per-couple policy had
resulted in coerced abortions and involuntary sterilization. He supported his view
with evidence supplied by many press stories and statements issued by China
scholars. He further noted that in order to implement the one-child-per-couple
policy, China needed demographic information. This, he found, had been provided
through the help of UNFPA, although he added that it did not mean that UNFPA
intended that its assistance be used for coercive purposes.28
Continued Application of Kemp-Kasten, 1986-1992
During the next few years, AID continued to request funds for UNFPA,
although with the understanding that a decision 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.29 In each year,
AID found that UNFPA was ineligible for U.S. support.
In 1989, Congress added language to the FY1990 Foreign Operations
Appropriations (H.R. 2939) that would essentially reverse the Kemp-Kasten
amendment as it applied to UNFPA. An amendment by Senator Mikulski provided
that “notwithstanding” Kemp-Kasten, UNFPA would receive not less than $15
million in FY1990, so long as the organization maintained U.S. funds in a segregated
account and did not spend them in China. President George H.W. Bush, who had
previously informed Congress that he would reject legislation containing the
Mikulski amendment, vetoed H.R. 2939 on November 19, 1989, because of the
Mikulski language and several other objectionable provisions unrelated to UNFPA
and China. Congress removed the Mikulski amendment following the veto and the
President signed the revised legislation.
Re-Interpretation 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 new
Administration’s policy was explained in more detail in letters exchanged between
AID Administrator Brian Atwood and Senator Helms in July and September 1993.
The policy reversal was based on several factors:
27 Ibid., p. 9.
28 Ibid., p. 10.
29 After 1985, most sources referred to the amendment as Kemp-Kasten. See footnote 11
for an explanation.

---

CRS-15
! Ambiguity of the Kemp-Kasten language — Administrator Atwood
noted that the Court of Appeals, in considering the case brought by
the Population Institute, deferred to the AID 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.” Administrator Atwood argued that because of this
ambiguity, a situation that had not been clarified in the intervening
years, it was therefore the right of a new Administration to interpret
Kemp-Kasten for itself.
! Over-reliance in 1985 on the statements by Representative Kemp —
Administrator Atwood pointed especially to the 1985 Court of
Appeals opinion which 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
explanation of an “ambiguous term,” Congressman Kemp could not
convince his colleagues to adopt his views in the committee report
itself. To the Court, this suggested that a majority of Representative
Kemp’s colleagues did not support his precise meaning of the
amendment.
! 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. Administrator Atwood concluded that
although the Administration remained concerned about coercive
practices in China, it believed that UNFPA did not “knowingly” or
“intentionally” support directly such practices.30
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 requiring the
organization to keep U.S. funds in a separate account, to not spend U.S. money in
China, and to forego transfers from the United States equal to the amount UNFPA
allocated for its China program. In several 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
30 This discussion is drawn from letters of Administrator Atwood to Senator Helms, dated
August 6 and September 10, 1993.

---

CRS-16
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, 1985-2004, see Appendix A.)
Fourth and Fifth UNFPA Programs in China and
Conflicting Evaluations
As noted above, 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 1999, 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” which included education and counseling regarding informed
choice of contraceptive methods and reproductive health and rights. According to
the 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 rigorously monitoring the projects.31 The fifth program, covering the
period 2003-2005, aims at expanding many of the initiatives begun under the
previous operation.
Investigations of UNFPA Programs
During implementation of the fourth program and the launch of a fifth cycle of
UNFPA assistance in China, the organization’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
31 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.

---

CRS-17
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 which
UNFPA supported programs.32
The Biegman Group. This team found that UNFPA plays a “positive and
important catalytic role in the reform of RH/FP services in China” and in moving
China away from coercive family planning practices and abuses. It recommended
that UNFPA continue its program in China and expand its scope and resources in the
future.33 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
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
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.
34 China Mission Report by UK MP’s, 1st April - 9th April 2002. Found at
[http://www.appg-popdevrh.org.uk].

---

CRS-18
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
Bush Administration Reviews of Kemp-Kasten and
UNFPA Contributions
The first budget submitted by President Bush in early 2001 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 provided, the language was similar to prior year Foreign
Operation 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, 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 FY2002.36
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
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 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund:
The Effect on Women’s Lives. Committee Hearings, February 2002.

---

CRS-19
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.37 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;
! 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 was 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
37 Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independed 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.

---

CRS-20
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 on those women coerced to have abortions
they would not otherwise undergo. 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.”38
Subsequent Administration Reviews and Legislative Action.
Following the July 2002 determination, the Administration notified Congress that it
intended to transfer to USAID $34 million from FY2002 appropriations in order to
fund bilateral family planning programs in which UNFPA had no involvement.
Congressional committees placed a hold on this transfer while the House and Senate
debated other proposals regarding UNFPA funding for FY2003 and FY2004, and
changes to the Kemp-Kasten provision.
In the Foreign Operations appropriation for FY2003, which became law on
February 20, 2003, Congress directed that UNFPA receive the funds appropriated in
the FY2002 appropriation, plus an equal amount for FY2003, so long as the President
determined that “UNFPA no longer supports or participates in the management of a
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”39 However, on September
25, 2003, the State Department notified Congress that the “factual circumstances” did
not support making a determination that UNFPA no longer supports or participates
in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
The Administration again proposed transferring funds earmarked by Congress for
UNFPA to USAID for bilateral family planning activities.
The question over the allocation of FY2002 and FY2003 UNFPA funds was
settled in the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, signed into law on January
23, 2004,40 when Congress specified that the $34 million withheld in FY2002 be used
for family planning programs in twelve countries, including Congo, Ethiopia,
Uganda, Haiti, and Russia. The $25 million in FY2003 funds that was earmarked for
but not transferred to UNFPA would be available for vulnerable children and for a
new initiative assisting young women, mothers, and children who are victims of
trafficking in persons. For UNFPA, the FY2004 funding bill earmarked $34 million,
subject, however, to the Kemp-Kasten conditions.
Recent Efforts to Amend Kemp-Kasten
During the 108th Congress, lawmakers tentatively approved two legislative
efforts to modify the Kemp-Kasten language in a way that might have paved the way
38 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.
39 Section 572 of the FY2003 Foreign Operations Appropriation, enacted in P.L. 108-7.
40 Section 567 of the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, enacted in Division D of
P.L. 108-199.

---

CRS-21
for a U.S. contribution to UNFPA in FY2004 and 2005. Ultimately both were
defeated.
The first occurred during consideration of an omnibus bill authorizing State
Department and public diplomacy programs, where the House International Relations
Committee voted 23-22 to authorize $50 million for UNFPA in FY2004 and
FY2005, and to amend existing eligibility requirements that would appear to have
made it more difficult for the President to deny funding to UNFPA. The vote came
on an amendment offered by Congressman Crowley to H.R. 1950, legislation
reported by the Committee on May 8, 2003.
The Crowley amendment would have made the money available only if the
President determined that UNFPA “directly” supports or participates in coercive or
involuntary activities. By adding the word “directly,” many presumed that the
determination issued in July 2002 by the Secretary of State that denied transfers to
UNFPA would not be sufficient to cut off contributions authorized in H.R. 1950. In
addition, the Crowley amendment defined the circumstances under which UNFPA
would be found ineligible. The provision in H.R. 1950 stated that the President
would need to find that UNFPA is “knowingly and intentionally working with a
purpose to continue, advance or expand the practice of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization, or playing a primary and essential role in a coercive or
involuntary aspect of a country’s family planning program.” Many believe that the
justification for terminating UNFPA funds for FY2002 would not meet this more
specific test. During House debate on H.R. 1950, however, lawmakers voted 216-
211 on July 15, 2003, to delete the Crowley amendment.
The second effort was approved by the Senate in passing the FY2005 Foreign
Operations appropriations measure (H.R. 4818) on September 23, 2004. The Senate-
approved bill amended the “Kemp-Kasten” language in a way that would narrow
somewhat the grounds on which the Administration could find UNFPA in violation
of the restrictions. Similar to the Crowley amendment, the Senate text stated that an
organization must “directly” support coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations
in order to be denied U.S. support. The measure further included new language
stating that no organization could be denied funds solely because the government of
a country engages in coercive practices. This presumably was an indirect reference
to China, intending to establish a policy that UNFPA cannot be declared ineligible
for U.S. funding exclusively because of coercive practices by Chinese family
planning officials. Conferees, however, deleted the Senate changes to the Kemp-
Kasten restriction and retained the existing text that has been in place the past two
decades.
Current Status: Administration Determination for FY2004 and
the FY2005 Appropriation
Although Congress earmarked $34 million for UNFPA in FY2004, the funds
remained conditioned on meeting the terms of the Kemp-Kasten provision. The
Administration had to make a determination by September 30, 2004, otherwise the
period for obligating the funds would expire and the money would revert to the
Treasury.

---

CRS-22
Accordingly, on July 16, 2004, the State Department issued a finding that the
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) remains in violation of the Kemp-Kasten
amendment due to its continuing programs in China, and that the organization will
not receive the $34 million appropriated for FY2004. The statement said that the
United States has been urging UNFPA and China to modify the organization’s
program in a manner that would permit U.S. support to resume. The State
Department found that no key changes had occurred in UNFPA’s programs that
would permit a resumption of U.S. funding under the conditions of the Kemp-Kasten
provision. Subsequently, the Administration transferred the funds to the Economic
Support Fund account, where the obligation authority does not expire until the end
of FY2005. State Department officials indicated that the Administration would
submit at some point a re-programming notification to Congress proposing that the
money be used to support programs combating human trafficking and prostitution.
For FY2005, Congress approved in H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriation,
FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), $34 million for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
restrictions. If the President determines that UNFPA is ineligible for U.S. funding
under Kemp-Kasten, P.L. 108-447 directs that the Administration use the $34 million
for USAID-managed family planning, maternal and reproductive health programs.
The act further specifies that FY2004 funds previously earmarked for UNFPA be
spent on anti-trafficking programs ($12.5 million) and family planning and maternal
and reproductive health activities ($12.5 million), rather than exclusively on anti-
trafficking programs as the Administration had signaled.
During conference committee consideration of H.R. 4818, lawmakers dropped
a Senate-passed provision that would have amended the Kemp-Kasten language in
a way that would narrow somewhat the grounds on which the Administration could
find UNFPA in violation of the restrictions. The Senate text stated that an
organization must directly support coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations in
order to be denied U.S. support, adding the word “directly” to the condition. The
amendment further included new text stating that no organization can be denied
funds solely because the government of a country engaged in coercive practices. This
presumably was an indirect reference to China, intending to establish a policy that
UNFPA could be declared ineligible for U.S. funding exclusively because of coercive
practices by Chinese family planning officials.
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 the State Department is
warning UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and other organizations that

---

CRS-23
continued involvement in joint programs with UNFPA might jeopardize their
funding support from the United States.41
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.
policy.”42 On August 11, 2003, however, the Consortium declined to accept the $1
million grant due to the exclusion of Marie Stopes International.
41 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.
42 Details for Funding the Reproductive Health Consortium (Taken Question),
Office of the State Department’s Spokesman, August 27, 2003.

---

CRS-24
Appendix — UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions, 1985-2004
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
Regular FY1985 appropriation:
UNFPA received $36
Not less than $46 million, or 16% of Population Assistance, whichever is lower, shall be made
million, after the
available for UNFPA.
withholding of $10
$26 million for
million to express
1985
UNFPA.
****************************************
U.S. disapproval of
coercion in China’s
Supplemental FY1985 appropriation:
family planning
program.
Kemp-Kasten conditions first enacted.
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
$38 million for
1986
No UNFPA funding.
UNFPA.
No specific UNFPA provision.
$32 million for
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1987
UNFPA, subject to
No UNFPA funding.
Kemp-Kasten.
No specific UNFPA provision.
$25 million for
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1988
UNFPA, subject to
No UNFPA funding
Kemp-Kasten.
No specific UNFPA provision.
$20 million for
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1989
UNFPA, subject to
No UNFPA funding.
Kemp-Kasten.
No specific UNFPA provision.

---

CRS-25
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
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 funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and
No UNFPA funding
UNFPA does not commingle amounts with other sums.
$19.39 million for
Earlier, $15 million
1990
UNFPA, subject to
Entire $15 million shall be refunded if any used by UNFPA for family planning programs in
appropria-tion 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.
No specific UNFPA provision.
$10 million for
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1991
UNFPA, subject to
No UNFPA funding
Kemp-Kasten.
No specific UNFPA provision.
$10 million for
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1992
UNFPA, subject to
No UNFPA funding
Kemp-Kasten.
No specific UNFPA provision.
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1993
No UNFPA funding.
No UNFPA funding.
No specific UNFPA provision.

---

CRS-26
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
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.
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does
UNFPA received $40
$50 million for
1994
not commingle amounts with other sums.
million from the United
UNFPA.
States.
Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1994.
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-27
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
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 does
not commingle amounts with other sums.
UNFPA received $35
million from the United
$60 million for
Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1995.
1995
States, after a
UNFPA.
rescission of $15
Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1995, regarding the amount of UNFPA’s
million.
budget for China. Whatever amount for China above $7 million shall be deducted after March
1 from the $50 million U.S. contribution.
****************************************
In separate legislation, Congress rescinded $15 million of the original $50 million appropriation
for UNFPA.

---

CRS-28
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
Not more than $30 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
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 does
$55 million for
million from the United
1996
not commingle amounts with other sums.
UNFPA.
States, after a with-
holding of $7.2 million.
Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1996.
Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1996, regarding the amount of UNFPA’s
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.
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does
UNFPA received $25
$30 million for
1997
not commingle amounts with other sums.
million from the United
UNFPA.
States.
Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1997.
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-29
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
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
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account and does
$30 million for
million from the United
1998
not commingle amounts with other sums.
UNFPA.
States, after a with-
holding of $5 million.
Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before March 1, 1998.
Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1998, 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.
No funds may be made available for UNFPA.
UNFPA received no
$25 million for
1999
funding from the
UNFPA.
Kemp-Kasten conditions included in enacted appropriation.
United States.
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
million from the United
2000
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
UNFPA.
States, after a with-
commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.
holding of $3.5 million.
Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2000, 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-30
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
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
million from the United
2001
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
UNFPA.
States, after a with-
commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.
holding of $3.5 million.
Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 2001, 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.
Secretary of State
determined that
UNFPA not eligible
under the Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
Not more than $34 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
UNFPA received no
funding from the
$25 million for
2002
No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
United States.
UNFPA.
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
FY2002 UNFPA funds
commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund abortions.
re-program-med for
bilateral family
planning/ maternal &
re-productive health
activities in several
deve-loping countries.

---

CRS-31
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
President did not issue
a finding that UNFPA
no longer supports or
participates in the
management of a
program of coercive
Not more than $34 million in FY2002 appropriations and an equal amount from FY2003
abortion or involuntary
appropriations shall be available for UNFPA if the President determines that UNFPA no longer
sterilization.
supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.
UNFPA received no
$25 million “reserve”
funding from the
No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
available for UNFPA,
United States.
2003
subject to Kemp-
Other abortion restrictions in this act or in the FY2002 appropriation shall apply to UNFPA
Kasten conditions.
FY2003 UNFPA funds
funding.
re-program-med for
assistance for
FY2002 conditions on UNFPA funding shall apply to FY2003 appropriations.
“vulnerable children”
and made available for
UNFPA funds deducted by the amount UNFPA spends in China in 2002 and 2003.
a new initia-tive for
assistance for young
women, mothers and
children who are
victims of traf-ficking
in persons.

---

CRS-32
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
Secretary of State
determined that
UNFPA not eligible
under the Kemp-Kasten
Up to $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten conditions.
conditions.
FY2002 UNFPA funds shall be made available for family planning, maternal & reproductive
UNFPA received no
health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda,
funding from the
Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Albania, Romania, and Kazakhstan.
United States.
$25 million “reserve”
available for UNFPA,
FY2003 UNFPA funds shall be allocated for assistance for “vulnerable children” and made
2004
FY2004 UNFPA funds
subject to Kemp-
available for a new initiative for assistance for young women, mothers and children who are
transferred to the
Kasten conditions.
victims of trafficking in persons.
Economic Support
Fund account, with the
No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
intention to use in
support of anti-
No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate account, does not
trafficking in persons
commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions.
programs. Possible
congres-sional
notification
forthcoming.

---

CRS-33
Fiscal
Administration
Funding and Policy
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Year
Budget Request
Outcome
$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 not
The Administra-tion is
commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does not fund abortions.
likely to review
$25 million “reserve”
UNFPA programs in
If FY2005 funds are not made available to UNFPA, they shall be transferred to the Child
available for UNFPA,
China later in 2005 and
2005
Survival/Health account and used by USAID for family planning, maternal, and reproductive
subject to Kemp-
issue a determina-tion
health activities.
Kasten conditions.
regarding UNFPA
eligi-bility in July or
Of the FY2004 funds earmarked for UNFPA, $12.5 million shall be available for anti-
August 2005.
trafficking programs and $12.5 million shall be available for USAID for family planning,
maternal, and reproductive health activities in Albania, Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Ethiopia, Georgia, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Nigeria, Romania, Russia, Rwanda,
Tanzania, Uganda, and Ukraine.

---