Order Code RL33250
International Population Assistance and Family
Planning Programs: Issues for Congress
Updated July 24, 2008
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in International Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

International Population Assistance and Family
Planning Programs: Issues for Congress
Summary
Since 1965, the U.S. government has supported international population
planning based on principles of volunteerism and informed choice that gives
participants access to information on all methods of birth control. This policy,
however, has generated contentious debate for over two decades, resulting in frequent
clarification and modification of U.S. international family planning programs. Given
the divisive nature of this debate, U.S. funding of these programs will likely remain
a point of contention during the 110th Congress.
In 1984, controversy arose over U.S. population aid policy when the Reagan
Administration introduced restrictions, which became known as the “Mexico City
policy.” The Mexico City policy denies U.S. funds to foreign non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion as a method of family
planning — even if the activities are undertaken with non-U.S. funds. Presidents
Reagan and George H.W. Bush also banned grants to the U.N. Population Fund
(UNFPA) due to evidence of coercive family planning practices in China.
President Clinton resumed UNFPA funding and reversed the Mexico City policy
in 1993. President George W. Bush, however, re-applied the Mexico City
restrictions. Following a State Department investigation of family planning programs
in China, the Administration suspended U.S. contributions to UNFPA in 2002, citing
violations of the “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which bans U.S. assistance to
organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive family
planning programs. The suspension of U.S. contributions to UNFPA has continued
through FY2008.
On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), which directs that $395
million be made available for bilateral family planning activities. The Act also
designates $40 million for UNFPA if it is determined eligible under the Kemp-
Kasten amendment. On June 26, 2008, the Administration announced that UNFPA
was ineligible for FY2008 funding under Kemp-Kasten.
The Administration’s FY2009 request for bilateral family planning and
reproductive health activities totals $327.53 million. The Administration also
requested $25 million for UNFPA funding if the organization is deemed eligible
under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The UNFPA funds would be appropriated
under the Child Survival and Health Programs account.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
U.S. Population Assistance Issues: Setting the Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Population Statistics Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Evolution of U.S. Policy (1974-1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Trends in Population Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Policy and Funding Issues in the U.S. Family Planning Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Abortion and Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Mexico City Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Restrictions on United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Funding . . 8
Family Planning Conditions in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
International Family Planning Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FY2009 Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FY2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FY2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Other Legislation (110th Congress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Population Assistance, FY1994-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

International Population Assistance
and Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress
U.S. Population Assistance Issues:
Setting the Context
Overview
Population assistance became a global issue in the late 1950s and early 1960s
after several private foundations, among them the International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF), began providing money to developing countries to control high
population growth rates. In 1966, when global population growth rates were reaching
an historic annual high of 2.1%, the United Nations began to include population
technical assistance in its international development aid programs. Population
assistance grew rapidly over the next half-dozen years, with the United States, other
developed countries, and international organizations such as the World Bank, all
beginning to contribute funds. With passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
Congress first authorized research on international family planning and population
issues and, in 1965, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
launched a series of population and reproductive health programs. In 1968, Congress
specifically funded family planning aid activities and USAID began to purchase
contraceptives for distribution through its programs in the developing world.
The first International Population Conference was held in 1974, followed by the
second in Mexico City in 1984, and the third in Cairo in 1994.1 The attention and
funding given to international family planning programs are credited with helping to
decrease population growth in developing countries from about a 1.7% per year
average between 1980 and 2002, to a projected annual average of 1.2% between 2002
and 2015. Fertility rates have fallen in developing nations from 4.1 children per
woman in 1980 to 3.0 in 2005 (if China is excluded from this calculation, however,
the decline in fertility rates is less dramatic at 3.5 children in 2005). Nevertheless,
while global population growth has slowed, the world’s population reached 6 billion
in 1999, 6.5 billion in 2005, and is expected to rise to 9.3 billion by 2050, with most
of the growth occurring in developing nations. In 1960, 70% of the world’s
1 The conferences were coordinated by the United Nations. More information is available
at [http://www.un.org/esa/devagenda/population.html].

---

CRS-2
population lived in developing countries, and in 2005 the level had grown to 81%.
These countries now account for 99% of world-wide population growth.2
The Population Statistics Debate
Population statistics alone are only part of a larger story. For the past thirty
years and more, countries have heatedly debated what the statistics mean.
Proponents of active family planning programs have held that high fertility rates and
rapid population growth are serious impediments to a country’s development.
According to this school of thought, people are consumers, and no poor country can
increase its standard of living and raise its per capita income while wrestling with the
problems of trying to feed and care for a rapidly expanding population. Thus, poor
and developing countries should invest in family planning programs as part of their
economic development process.
On the opposing side, critics of active population planning programs hold that
there is little or no correlation between rapid population growth and a country’s
economic development. Some argue that increased numbers of people provide added
productive capacity; therefore, they say, high population growth rates actually can
contribute to a country’s ability to increase its standard of living. Proponents of this
view argue that, at the very least, current economies of scale and global trading
patterns have too many empirical variables and uncertainties to establish a direct
correlation between population growth and economic development.
Evolution of U.S. Policy (1974-1994)
As the population debate evolved, many countries, including the United States,
changed their views. At the 1974 international population conference, the United
States and other donor countries asserted that high fertility rates were an impediment
to economic development — a point that was then rejected by developing countries.
In keeping with this view, in 1977 the Carter Administration proposed legislative
language, later enacted in Sec. 104(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, that
sought to link population growth and traditional development assistance programs
on the grounds that a high population growth rate could have a negative effect on
other development objectives.
A decade later, at the second International Conference on Population in Mexico
City in 1984, some participants reversed their positions. Many developing countries
had become convinced of the urgent need to manage population growth, while U.S.
officials asserted that population growth was not necessarily a negative force in
economic development, but was instead a “neutral phenomenon.” At Mexico City,
Reagan Administration officials emphasized the need for developing countries to
adopt sound economic policies that stressed open markets and an active private
sector.
2 Population Reference Bureau (PRB), Frequently Asked Questions About the PRB World
Population Data Sheet, (2005). Also see PRB, 2007 World Population Data Sheet,
available at [http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2007/2007WorldPopulation
DataSheet.aspx].

---

CRS-3
Nearly a decade later, the Clinton Administration changed the U.S. position on
family planning programs by lifting restrictive U.S. provisions announced at the
Mexico City Conference. At the 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development in Cairo, U.S. officials emphasized support for family planning and
reproductive health services, improving the status of women, and providing safe
access to abortion.
Trends in Population Research
Since the 1994 Cairo conference, groups supporting strategies to limit rapid
population growth have supported a broader agenda of initiatives that include the
promotion of gender equality, increasing adolescent education on sexuality and
reproductive health, and ensuring the universal right of health care, including
reproductive health. Although endorsed at the July 1999 U.N. meeting of 179
nations to assess progress of the Cairo population conference recommendations, the
issues of child education and government responsibilities for ensuring access to safe
abortions in countries where the practice is legal were particularly controversial.
Some governments opposed the broadening of the Cairo mandate and some,
including Argentina, Nicaragua, and the Vatican, filed reservations to the
recommendations reached by consensus.
More recently, new research suggests that there has been a significant decline
in birthrates in several of the largest developing nations, including India, Brazil, and
Egypt.3 Some demographers conclude that global population projections for this
century may need to be reduced by as much as one billion people. A U.N. report
dated December 9, 2003 — “World Population 2300” — projects as a “medium
scenario” that world population will peak in 2075 at 9.2 billion and then, as fertility
rates in all countries reach below replacement levels, decline over the next 100 years
to 8.3 billion. The report projects that if fertility rates return to replacement levels,
world population would begin to rise, reaching 9 billion by 2300; otherwise, the
number of people would remain at around 8.3 billion.
Although there are differences of opinion as to why fertility rates are falling —
and whether the trend is universal throughout the developing world — a few
demographers argue that the change has less to do with government family planning
policies and foreign aid, and more to do with expanded women’s rights in these
countries. Women are choosing to have fewer children, they argue. Others also
contend that with improved health conditions and lowered infant mortality rates,
parents are deciding to have fewer babies because they are more confident that their
children will survive.
3 See, for example, “Population Estimates Fall as Poor Women Assert Control,” New York
Times, March 10, 2002.

---

CRS-4
Policy and Funding Issues in the
U.S. Family Planning Debate
Throughout the debate on family planning — at times the most contentious
foreign aid issue considered by Congress — the cornerstone of U.S. policy has
remained a commitment to international family planning programs based on
principles of volunteerism and informed choice that give participants access to
information on all major methods of birth control. At present, USAID maintains
family planning projects in more than 60 countries that include counseling and
services, training of health workers, contraceptive supplies and distribution, financial
management, public education and marketing, and biomedical and contraceptive
research and development. USAID applies a broad reproductive health approach to
its family planning programs, increasingly integrating it with other interventions
regarding maternal and child health, the enhancement of the status of women, and
HIV prevention.
In addition to differences of opinion over how population growth affects
economic development in developing countries, family planning assistance has
become a source of substantial controversy among U.S. policymakers on two other
issues: 1) the use of federal funds to perform or promote abortions abroad and how
to deal with evidence of coercion in some foreign national family planning programs,
especially in China; and 2) setting appropriate and effective funding levels for family
planning assistance.
Abortion and Coercion
Arguably, the most bitter controversies in U.S. family planning policy have
erupted over abortion — in particular, the degree to which abortions and coercive
programs occur in other countries’ family planning programs, the extent to which
U.S. funds should be granted to or withheld from such countries and organizations
that administer these programs, and the effect that withholding U.S. funds might have
on global population growth and family planning services in developing nations.
These issues essentially stem from the contentious domestic debate over U.S.
abortion policy that has continued since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade
decision holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s decision whether to
terminate her pregnancy. In every Congress since 1973, abortion opponents have
introduced constitutional amendments or legislation that would prohibit abortions.
As an alternative, abortion critics have also persuaded Congress to attach numerous
provisions to annual appropriation measures banning the use of federal funds for
performing abortions.
Much of this debate has focused on domestic spending bills, especially
restrictions on abortions under the Medicaid program in the Labor/Health and Human
Services appropriation legislation. Nevertheless, the controversy spilled over into
U.S. foreign aid policy almost immediately when Congress approved an amendment
to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in late 1973 (Section 104(f)). The act prohibits
the use of foreign development assistance to 1) pay for the performance of abortions
or involuntary sterilizations, 2) to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions,
or 3) to coerce or provide persons with any financial incentive to undergo

---

CRS-5
sterilizations. Since 1981, Congress has enacted nearly identical restrictions in
annual Foreign Operations appropriation bills.
For the past 25 years, both congressional actions and administration directives
have restricted U.S. population assistance in various ways, including those set out in
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and more recent executive regulations and
appropriation provisions prohibiting indirect support for coercive family planning
(specifically in China) and abortion activities related to the work of international and
foreign NGOs. Two issues in particular which were initiated in 1984 — the Mexico
City policy involving funding for foreign non-governmental organizations, and
restrictions on funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) because of its
activities in China — have remained controversial and continue as prominent
features in the population assistance debate.
The Mexico City Policy.4 In 1984, the Reagan Administration announced
that it would further restrict U.S. population aid by terminating USAID support for
any foreign organizations (but not national governments) that were involved in
voluntary abortion activities, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S.
funds. U.S. officials presented the revised policy at the 2nd U.N. International
Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984. Thereafter, it become known as
the “Mexico City policy.” During the George H.W. Bush Administration, efforts
were made in Congress to overturn the Mexico City policy and rely on existing
congressional restrictions in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 banning direct U.S.
funding of abortions and coerced sterilizations. Provisions adopted by the House
and/or Senate that would have reversed the policy, however, were removed from
legislation under threat of a presidential veto.
Critics charge, however, that the Mexico City policy is a violation of free speech
and the rights of women to choose. They contend that the policy undermines
maternal health care services offered in developing nations and may actually
contribute to the rise in the number of abortions performed, including some that are
unsafe and illegal. They further emphasize that family planning organizations may
cut back on services because they are unsure of the full implications of the
restrictions and do not want to risk losing eligibility for USAID funding. Opponents
also believe that the conditions of the Mexico City policy undermine relations
between the U.S. government and foreign NGOs and multilateral groups, creating a
situation in which the United States challenges their right to determine how to spend
their own money and imposes a so-called gag order on their ability to promote
changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing nations. The latter, these
critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to American groups working in the
United States.
Mexico City Policy Removed. President Clinton, in a January 22, 1993
memo to USAID, lifted restrictions imposed by the Reagan and Bush
Administrations on grants to family planning NGOs — in effect ending the Mexico
4 For a more detailed discussion of the original Mexico City policy, its implementation, and
impact, see CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning: The “Mexico City”
Policy, by Larry Nowels.

---

CRS-6
City policy. The memo noted that the policy had extended beyond restrictions in the
Foreign Assistance Act and was not mandated by law. In his remarks, President
Clinton explained that this step would “reverse a policy that has seriously
undermined much needed efforts to promote safe and effective family planning
programs abroad, and will allow us to once again provide leadership in helping to
stabilize world population.”5
Past Efforts to Legislate the Mexico City Policy. Beginning in 1993,
abortion opponents in Congress attempted to legislate modified terms of the Mexico
City policy. Under threat of a Presidential veto and resistance from the Senate,
Mexico City restrictions had not been enacted into law until the November 1999
passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113). The
White House accepted the family planning conditions in exchange for congressional
support of the payment of nearly $1 billion owed by the United States to the United
Nations. The restrictions expired at the end of FY2000.
Under terms of Section 599D of P.L. 106-113, the President could waive the
certification requirement for up to $15 million in grants to groups that would
otherwise be ineligible. President Clinton exercised the waiver and further instructed
USAID to implement Section 599D in a way that would minimize the impact on U.S.
funded family planning programs. Nine organizations refused to certify under the
terms of P.L. 106-113, including two of the largest recipients of USAID population
aid grants — IPPF and the World Health Organization (WHO). These nine non-
certifying organizations received about $8.4 million in FY2000 grants, of which IPPF
accounted for $5 million and WHO roughly $2.5 million. These conditions, enacted
in an appropriation act, expired at the end of FY2000.
Bush Administration Restores the Mexico City Policy. On January 22,
2001, President George W. Bush revoked the Clinton Administration memorandum
and restored in full the terms of the Mexico City restrictions. In making the
announcement, however, the White House Press Secretary stated that the “President
is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided in the FY2001
appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by
providing quality voluntary family planning services.”6
As was the case during the 1980s and early 1990s when the Mexico City policy
was in place, foreign NGOs and international organizations, as a condition for receipt
of U.S. funds, would need to certify that they would not perform or actively promote
abortions as a method of family planning in other countries. President Bush, in
announcing the policy change, noted that American taxpayer funds should not be
used to pay for abortions or to advocate or actively promote abortion. Supporters of
the certification requirement argue that even though permanent law bans USAID
funds from being used to perform or promote abortions, money is fungible;
organizations receiving American-taxpayer funding can use USAID resources for
5 President Bill Clinton, “Remarks on Signing Memorandums on Medical Research and
Reproductive Health and an Exchange With Reporters,” January 22, 1993.
6 The White House. Office of the Secretary. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy, January
22, 2001.

---

CRS-7
legal activities while diverting money raised from other sources to perform abortions
or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The certification process, they
contend, stops the fungibility “loophole.”
Bush Administration Mexico City Policy Guidelines. On February 15,
2001, USAID released specific contract clauses necessary to implement the
President’s directive. The guidelines state that U.S. NGOs receiving USAID grants
cannot furnish assistance to foreign NGOs that 1) perform or actively promote
abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries; or 2) furnish
assistance to other foreign NGOs that conduct such activities. When USAID
provides assistance directly to a foreign NGO, the organization must certify that it
does not now or will not during the term of the grant perform or actively promote
abortion as a method of family planning in USAID-recipient countries or provide
financial support to other foreign NGOs that carry out such activities. The
implementing regulations contain several exceptions, including the following:
! Abortions may be performed if the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried to term or following rape or
incest; health care facilities may treat injuries or illnesses caused by
legal or illegal abortions (post-abortion care).
! “Passive” responses by family planning counselors to questions
about abortion from pregnant women who have already decided to
have a legal abortion are not considered an act of promoting
abortion; referrals for abortion as a result of rape, incest, or where
the mother’s life would be endangered, or for post-abortion care are
permitted.
USAID is able to continue support foreign governments, either directly or
through a grantee, even in cases where the government includes abortion in its family
planning program. Money provided to such governments, however, must be placed
in a segregated account and none of the funds may be drawn to finance abortion
activities.
The President issued a memorandum on August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of
State, directing that the Mexico City policy conditions be applied to State Department
programs in the same way they are applied to USAID activities. This directive
mostly impacts State Department-managed refugee programs, large portions of which
are implemented by international organizations and NGOs. The President’s
memorandum, however, stated that the policy would not apply to multilateral
organizations that are associations of governments, presumably referring to the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees, among others. The President further stated that
the Mexico City policy would not apply to foreign aid funds authorized under P.L.
108-25, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
Act of 2003.
Related Mexico City Policy Issues. The Bush Administration policy to
prevent foreign assistance from supporting organizations performing or promoting
abortions has also shaped other U.S. policy positions at multilateral fora. In October
2004, international family planning activists sought to commemorate the 10 year

---

CRS-8
anniversary of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) with a statement endorsing the 1994 recommendations. Although more than
250 global leaders, including 85 current and 22 former heads of state and government
from Europe, Asia, and Africa, signed the document, President Bush chose not to add
his signature. According to State Department officials, while the United States
supports the goals and objectives of the Cairo conference, the U.S. could not join
others in signing the “world leaders” statement because it included the concept of
“sexual rights.” This term, these officials said, does not have a consensus definition
and was not part of the ICPD platform. Critics, however, note that at the 1995
Beijing women’s conference, “sexual rights” was included in the adopted action plan
and supported by United States.
Restrictions on United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Funding.7
At the 1984 Mexico City Conference, the Reagan Administration instituted a new
policy relating to UNFPA.8 The Administration required that UNFPA provide
“concrete assurances that [it] is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for,
abortion or coercive family planning programs.” It was particularly concerned with
UNFPA’s activities in China, where there is evidence of coercive family planning
practices.
Subsequently, Congress legislated a more restrictive UNFPA policy — aimed
at coercive Chinese family planning programs and UNFPA’s continuing operations
in the country — by enacting the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in the FY1985
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88). This language prohibited the use of
appropriated funds for any organization or program, as determined by the President,
found to be supporting or participating “in the management” of a program of coercive
abortion or involuntary sterilization. Following enactment of P.L. 99-88, USAID
announced that $10 million of $46 million that had been directed for UNFPA during
FY1985 would be redirected to other programs, and later said that the United States
would not contribute to UNFPA at all in 1986. Most of the $25 million that was
originally allocated for UNFPA was spent for other international family planning
activities. Even though this pattern to redirect UNFPA transfers to other population
assistance programs continued, critics of the Kemp-Kasten amendment and the
President’s determination to suspend contributions asserted that UNFPA was the
world’s most effective family planning organization, and that the quality of services
provided in developing nations outside of China suffered due to the unwillingness
of the United States to support them. At the time of suspension, U.S. payments
represented nearly one-third of UNFPA’s annual budget. From 1986 through 1993,
no U.S. contributions went to UNFPA.
7 For more detailed information regarding UNFPA, see CRS Report RL32703, The U.N.
Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by Luisa Blanchfield.
8 UNFPA is a U.N. specialized agency that “supports countries in using population data for
policies and programs” to improve reproductive health, prevent HIV/AIDS, promote gender
equality, and make motherhood safer. UNFPA was the lead U.N. agency for the 1994
International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. For further information
on UNFPA’s mandate and activities, see [http://www.unfpa.org/].

---

CRS-9
The Clinton Administration lifted the ban on UNFPA contributions, making
available $14.5 million in FY1993 but stipulating that funds could not be used in
China. Again, congressional critics of China’s family planning practices attempted
unsuccessfully to attach provisions to various foreign aid bills banning U.S.
contributions unless UNFPA withdrew from China or the President could certify that
China no longer maintained a coercive family planning program. While the United
States continued to support UNFPA during the next eight years (except for FY1999),
Congress attached restrictions in appropriation measures that in most cases reduced
the U.S. contribution by the proportionate share of UNFPA funds spent on China.
Bush Administration and UNFPA. For FY2002, Congress provided “not
more than” $34 million for UNFPA. But in mid-January 2002, the Bush
Administration placed a hold on U.S. contributions to UNFPA, pending a review of
the organization’s program in China. The White House said it initiated the review
because of new evidence that coercive practices continued in counties where UNFPA
concentrated its programs.9
Since the July 2002 determination, the Administration has transferred $34
million from each of FY2002, FY2004, and FY2005 appropriations, and $25 million
from FY2003 funds that would have otherwise been provided to UNFPA to support
bilateral family planning programs and activities combating human trafficking and
prostitution. Approximately $22.5 million in unused UNFPA funds from FY2006
was transferred to the International Organizations and Program (IOP) account. On
September 6, 2007, the Administration sent a letter to Members of Congress stating
that UNFPA is ineligible for FY2007 funds because of its support of coercive family
planning practices in China.10 On June 26, 2008, a State Department official
announced that UNFPA is ineligible for FY2008 funding under the Kemp-Kasten
amendment.11
State Department Team Assesses UNFPA Program in China. While
most observers agree that coercive family planning practices continue in China,
differences remain over the extent, if any, to which UNFPA is involved in
involuntary activities and whether UNFPA should operate at all in a country where
such conditions exist. Given conflicting reports, a State Department investigative
team visited China in May 2002 and reported a series of findings and
recommendations. The team found no evidence that UNFPA “has knowingly
supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or
9 See House International Relations Committee hearing, Coercive Population Control in
China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilization, October 17, 2001, and
a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund:
The Effect on Women’s Lives, February 27, 2002.
10 “White House: No U.N. Funding for China,” The Associated Press, September 7, 2007.
11 Press statement by Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, “Fiscal Year 2008 Funding for the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),” U.S. Department of State, June 27, 2008,
available at [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jun/106348.htm].

---

CRS-10
involuntary sterilization” in China, and recommended the United States release not
more than $34 million of previously appropriated funds to UNFPA.12
Nevertheless, 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.13 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 imposed fines and penalties on families (“social
compensation fees”) that have children exceeding the number approved by the
government. The Department further noted that UNFPA had funded computers and
data-processing equipment that had helped strengthen the management of the
Chinese State Family Planning Commission. Beyond the legitimate uses of these and
other items financed by UNFPA, such equipment facilitated, in the view of the State
Department, China’s ability to impose social compensation fees or perform coercive
abortions. 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.”
On September 17, 2005, the State Department stated that the United States had
been urging UNFPA and China to modify the organization’s program in a manner
that would permit U.S. support to resume, but that no key changes had occurred that
would allow a resumption of U.S. funding under the conditions of the Kemp-Kasten
provision. Subsequently, on October 18 of that year, USAID notified Congress that
the reprogrammed UNFPA set-aside would be made available to expand family
planning and reproductive health programs in 14 other countries.14
U.S. Response to the New UNFPA China Program. The September 17
announcement followed a June 22, 2005 UNFPA Executive Board meeting to
consider UNFPA’s new five-year, $27 million program for China. At the meeting,
Kelly Ryan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population,
Refugees and Migration, argued that UNFPA should end its operations in China
because of the coercive nature of China’s family planning programs. Two days later,
State Department spokesperson, Sean McCormick, issued a statement saying the
United States was “disappointed” that UNFPA had decided to continue financial and
technical support to the Chinese birth limitation program. He noted that U.S.
opposition was not aimed at UNFPA but was a “matter of principle,” based on strong
American opposition to “human rights abuses associated with coercive birth
limitation regimes.” He acknowledged that UNFPA does not approve of coercive
12 See [http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122.htm] for report’s full text.
13 See [http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/other/12128.htm] for a full text of the determination.
14 The most significant increases were made in programs for Georgia, Madagascar, Romania,
Russia, Rwanda, and Ukraine.

---

CRS-11
policies but that the organization’s continued presence in China offered a “seal of
approval” for Chinese policies.
Opposition to the State Department Determination. Critics of the
Administration’s decision opposed it for a number of reasons, including the loss of
$34 million, an amount that represented about 9% of UNFPA income in 2001. They
argued that access to voluntary family planning programs by persons in around 140
countries would be reduced, undermining the health of women and children,
increasing unwanted pregnancies, and increasing the likelihood of higher numbers
of abortions. Still other critics were concerned about the possible application of the
Administration’s interpretation of Kemp-Kasten for other international organizations
operating in China and to which the U.S. contributes — for example, UNICEF,
WHO, and the U.N. Development Program.
Other Related State Department Determinations. There have been
several other State Department determinations related to the July 2002 decision
regarding UNFPA. On August 6, 2003, for example, 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
at the time was 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 an
“approach most consistent with U.S. policy.” On August 11, however, the
Consortium declined to accept the $1 million grant due to the exclusion of Marie
Stopes International.
In another decision, the Administration notified the Global Health Council in
April 2004 that the U.S. government would not provide funding for the Council’s 31st
annual meeting in June 2004 because UNFPA would be a participant. Reportedly,
U.S. officials told representatives of international organizations and NGOs that
UNICEF, WHO, and other organizations that continued involvement in joint
programs with UNFPA might jeopardize their funding support from the United
States.15
Family Planning Conditions in China. As noted, much of this debate has
focused on UNFPA’s programs in China, both because of China’s well-known
population growth problem and because of widespread publicity given to reports of
coercion in its family planning programs. China’s population increased from 500
million in 1950 to 1.008 billion according to the 1982 census — an average annual
growth rate of 2%, or a doubling of the population every 36 years. (Although the 2%
rate is not particularly large by developing country standards, many consider a lower
rate crucial to China’s economic development prospects given the country’s already
huge population size.)
15 Christopher Marquis, “U.S. Is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Population Unit,” New
York Times, June 21, 2004.

---

CRS-12
Chinese authorities came to view control of population growth not simply as an
important priority, but as a necessity for the nation’s survival. In an attempt to reach
a 1% annual population growth rate, Chinese authorities, in 1979, instituted a policy
of allowing only one child per couple, providing monetary bonuses and other benefits
as incentives to comply. Women with one living child who became pregnant a
second time were said to be subjected to rigorous pressure to end the pregnancy and
undergo sterilization; couples who actually had a second child faced heavy fines,
employment demotions, and other penalties. Chinese leaders have admitted that
coerced abortions and involuntary sterilizations occur, but insist that those involved
are acting outside the law and are punished, particularly through the Administrative
Procedure Law enacted in October 1990. Chinese authorities have termed female
infanticide an “intolerable crime” that must be punished by law.
Other press reports suggest that the Chinese State Family Planning Commission
(SFPC) has softened some of its previous harsh tactics to limit population growth.
A number of counties have ended the system of permits for pregnancy and quotas for
the number of children that can be born annually. When it launched in January 1998
a new $20 million, five-year program in China, UNFPA announced that SFPC
officials had agreed to drop birth targets in the 32 counties where U.N. activities
would be focused. And in May 1999, the city of Beijing ended an eight-year policy
that women had to be at least 24 years old to bear a child and lifted the requirement
for couples to obtain a certificate before having a child.
On September 1, 2002, China adopted the Population and Family Planning Law,
the country’s first formal law on this subject. The law, which requires couples who
have an unapproved child to pay a “social compensation fee” and extends preferential
treatment to couples who abide by the birth limits, is intended to standardize the
implementation of the Government’s birth limitation policies. The State Department
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 (dated March 2007), however,
found that enforcement of the law varied by location.
The broad question concerning the degree of coercive family planning practices
in China remains a controversial matter. The State Department’s most recent human
rights report (covering 2006) concluded that
China’s birth planning policies retained harshly coercive elements in law and
practice. The laws restrict the rights of families to choose the number of children
they have and the period of time between births. The penalties for violating the
laws are strict, leaving some women little choice but to abort pregnancies ...
Those who violated the child limit policy by having an unapproved child or
helping another do so faced disciplinary measures such as job loss or demotion
... and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction
of property. In the case of families that already had two children, one parent was
often pressured to undergo sterilization.16
16 “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2006 — China,” U.S. Department of State,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, March 6, 2007, available at
[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78771.htm].

---

CRS-13
Chinese officials acknowledge past instances of forced abortion and involuntary
sterilizations, but say this is no longer the case and characterize the social
compensation fees as not coercive, but a “disincentive” or “necessary form of
economic restraint.”17
Recent attention has focused on reports documenting a campaign by local family
planning officials around the city of Linyi in Shandong Province to force couples
with two children to undergo sterilizations or to demand women pregnant with a third
child have an abortion. Local activists are pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the
government. The group’s leader, Chen Guangcheng, was placed under house arrest
and subsequently sentenced to four years and three months in prison.18 In mid-
September 2005, China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission
acknowledged that illegal coercive practices had occurred, and that responsible
officials had been dismissed and that some had been detained.19
Following the May 2002 State Department investigation of Chinese policies,
senior Department officials began a series of discussions with China regarding its
birth planning law. Arthur Dewey, Assistant Secretary of State for Population,
Refugees, and Migration, told the House International Relations Committee on
December 14, 2004, that in six rounds of talks with Chinese officials, there had been
“encouraging movement” in China’s approach to population policy and the reduction
of coercive practices.20 Nevertheless, Assistant Secretary Dewey said that the social
compensation fee policy set out in China’s national law on Population and Birth
Planning is a “harsh and effective enforcement tool” that is used to force women to
have an abortion, and is therefore regarded as a coercive policy. While negotiations
have resulted in some progress, he concluded that China’s policies have not been
altered enough to allow the Bush Administration to resume UNFPA funding.
As noted previously, U.S. officials continued to voice their opposition at a
UNFPA executive board meeting on June 22, 2005, where members met to consider
a new, five-year (2006-2010), $27 million UNFPA program in China. A State
Department press release on June 24 again acknowledged that China had made some
progress in its approach to population issues, but argued that Beijing’s birth
limitation policy continues to contain several coercive elements, including the social
17 U.S. Department of State, Assessment Team Report, May 29, 2002.
18 For more information, see “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2006 — China,”
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, March 6, 2007,
available at [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78771.htm].
19 Benjamin Kang Lim, “Blind China Activist Under House Arrest Since September,”
Reuters, January 6, 2006; Philip Pan, “Who Controls the Family? Blind Activist Leads
Peasants in Legal Challenge to Abuses of China’s Population Growth Policy,” Washington
Post, August 27, 2005; and “China Terse About Action on Abuses of One-Child Policy,”
Washington Post, September 20, 2005.
20 Dewey cited, for example, the elimination of a requirement for married couples to obtain
government permission prior to pregnancy in 25 of China’s 31 provinces, municipalities,
and autonomous regions. He also noted the government’s launch of a public information
project highlighting the status of the girl child. He viewed this as a positive step towards
ending discrimination in China against girls and women.

---

CRS-14
maintenance fee for unplanned births, and regulations that limit choices by women
other than to undergo an abortion. At the June 22 meeting, China’s deputy U.N.
ambassador Zhang Yishan argued that due to the size of China’s population, it had
to maintain a strong family planning program, and that without the policies of the last
30 years, China’s population would have grown by 300 million additional people.
He countered that, by law, family planning workers are not permitted to utilize
coercive measures in their work.
The UNFPA Executive Board approved the new five-year program for China
on January 30, 2006. Prior to the signing, U.S. Deputy Representative to the United
Nations, Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, expressed disappointment that no substantive
changes had been made to the draft plan that had been reviewed in mid-2005. He
argued that UNFPA assistance provided a “de facto United Nations ‘seal of
approval’” to Chinese “abhorrent” practices. He further asserted that the new
Country Program Document for China was incorrect in its claim that China was
committed to implementing the Cairo Population Conference action plan, a program
that excluded coercive practices in family planning activities.21 A group of ten
European nations disagreed, however, issuing a statement saying that China did
conform to the program of 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development.22
Funding Levels
Since 1965, USAID has obligated over $6.6 billion in assistance for
international population planning. In many years, and especially over the past
decade, the appropriate level of funding for population assistance has been
controversial, and at times, linked directly with differences concerning Mexico City
restrictions and abortion. Until FY1996, Congress generally supported higher
funding levels for population aid than proposed by the President, especially during
the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Appropriations peaked in FY1995 at $577
million.
During the balance of the Clinton Administration, however, Congress cut and
placed restrictions on bilateral funding. Amounts for bilateral programs fell to $356
million in FY1996, but grew steadily to $425 million by FY2001. When President
Bush took office in January 2001, the White House said that it would maintain the
$425 million funding level of the previous Administration. While budgets submitted
by President Bush adhered to the $425 million target through FY2006, in every year
Congress increased funding levels, as shown in Table 1. Bilateral funds reached
their highest totals since the mid-1990s in FY2003 at $443.6 million, but fell back
somewhat more recently. In some years beginning in FY2002, bilateral family
planning levels have received additional resources when UNFPA-earmarked funds
were reprogrammed for bilateral activities after UNFPA was determined to be
ineligible for U.S. support.
21 U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Ambassador Wolff: Remarks on Proposed UNFPA
Sixth Country Program for China, January 26, 2006.
22 “UN Population Fund Endorses 27-million-dollar China Program,” Agence France Presse,
January 30, 2006.

---

CRS-15
Financing family planning and basic reproductive health care programs in
developing countries became a major issue at the 1994 Cairo population conference.
Participating nations agreed that foreign aid donors would provide one-third, or $5.7
billion, of the annual costs of such services that were estimated to grow to about $17
billion in 2000. A July 1999 conference assessing implementation of the 1994 Cairo
strategy, however, found that industrialized countries had fallen far short of the
financing goal, providing only about $1.9 billion per year. It also noted that donor
allocations still fall far below the targets set at Cairo.23 A more recent analysis
suggests a different trend, noting that donor nations contributed $2.3 billion in 2002,
the largest amount ever. Similarly, the UNFPA announced in January 2007 that the
number of donors to its program had increased from 166 in 2004 to 180 in 2006. The
amount promised from donors reached a record of $360 million in 2006.24
Table 1. U.S. Population Assistance, FY1994-2008
(millions of $)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002c 2003c 2004c 2005c
2006c
2007c
2008
Bilateral Aid 486.9 542.0 432.0 385.0 385.0 385.0 372.0a 425.0 425.0 443.6 429.5 437.0
435.0 435.6 457.2f
UNFPA
40.0
35.0
22.8
25.0
20.0
0.0
21.5b
21.5b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
TBD
Total
526.9 577.0 454.8 410.0 405.0 385.0
393.5 446.5 425.0 443.6 429.5 437.0 435.0d 435.6
TBD
Source: USAID Bureau of Global Health Strategic Planning and Budgeting Division. Amounts are adjusted for rescissions
in appropriate years.
a. The bilateral FY2000 aid level reflects a transfer of $12.5 million from population assistance to child survival activities.
b. UNFPA amounts for FY2000 and FY2001 reflect a $3.5 million deduction due to legislative restrictions.
c. In each of FY2002-FY2007, the Administration determined that UNFPA was ineligible for U.S. funding because of its programs in
China, and withheld appropriated funds. Some of the withheld funds were reallocated for USAID bilateral family planning,
vulnerable children, and counter-trafficking in persons programs.
e. This includes the .81% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division
J, Section 699P, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008, December 26, 2007.
f. This figure is an estimate and includes a 1% rescission required by P.L. 109-289, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007,
Division B, September 29, 2006.
g. The Administration has not yet determined if UNFPA is eligible for FY2008 funding.
International Family Planning Legislation
FY2009 Administration Request
The Administration’s FY2009 request for bilateral international family planning
and reproductive health activities totals $327.53 million. This includes $301.7
million from the Child Survival and Health Program account, $17.166 million from
Economic Support Funds (ESF), $7.901 million from FREEDOM Support Act
23 Population Action International, Progress and Promises: Trends in International
Assistance for Reproductive Health and Population, 2004.
24 “Record Number of Countries Contributed Record Amount to UNFPA in 2006,” UNFPA
Press Release, January 15, 2007.

---

CRS-16
(FSA), and $763,000 for Eastern Europe and Baltic States Assistance (SEED).25 The
Administration also requested $25 million for UNFPA funding if the organization is
deemed eligible under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The UNFPA funds would be
appropriated under the Child Survival and Health Programs account.26
FY2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations
On December 26, 2007, the President signed into law H.R. 2764, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, (P.L. 110-161),27 which designates $395
million for bilateral family planning activities. The Act also directs that $40 million
be made available to UNFPA if it becomes eligible under the terms of the Kemp-
Kasten amendment. UNFPA funds would be drawn from the Global Health and
Child Survival account, with no less than $7 million derived from the International
Organizations and Programs (IOP) account. On June 26, 2008, however, a State
Department official announced that UNFPA is ineligible for FY2008 funding under
the Kemp-Kasten amendment due to evidence that it supports or participates in
coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization practices in China. The official stated,
“We are prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future if its program in China
is ended or restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law, or if China ends its
program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”28 This marks the seventh
consecutive year that the Administration has not funded UNFPA under the Kemp-
Kasten provision.
P.L. 110-161 includes reporting requirement for UNFPA funding. The Act
requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on UNFPA funding to the
appropriate congressional committees no later than four months after enactment. The
report shall indicate the amount of funds that UNFPA is budgeting for the year in
which the report is submitted for a country program in the People’s Republic of
China.29 If the Secretary of State’s report indicates that UNFPA funds will be used
for a program in China, then the funds “shall be deducted from the funds made
available to the UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which the report is submitted.” The provision also states, “Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any
organization by reason of the application of another provision of this Act or any other
provision of law.”
P.L. 110-161 also establishes a reporting requirement for Administration
decisions made under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The Act directs that any
25 Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 754-755,
available at [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/101368.pdf].
26 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2009, p.
815, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf].
27 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, December 26, 2007, P.L. 110-161 [121 Stat.
1844]. See Division J, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Relations Programs
Appropriations Act, 2008, Title III and Section 660.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., Section 660.

---

CRS-17
determination “must be made no later than six months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and must be accompanied by a comprehensive analysis as well as the
complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.”30 In past years,
for example, the Administration has announced UNFPA eligibility for U.S. funding
in September or October of the appropriate fiscal year. In some cases, it did not
provide justification for its decision. The new provision requires the Administration
to announce its decision by June and to provide comprehensive analysis and evidence
to support its position.
The Administration’s FY2008 request for bilateral international family planning
and reproductive health activities totaled $324.8 million.31 This represented a $32.2
million decrease from the FY2007 Administration request of $357 million, and a
$115.2 million decrease from the enacted 2006 funding level of $440 million. The
Administration cited “significant successes that have been achieved after 40 years of
worldwide family planning efforts” as justification for decreased funding. The
Administration also requested $25 million for UNFPA funding if the organization is
deemed eligible under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds would be
appropriated under the Child Survival and Health Programs account.32

FY2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations
The President’s FY2007 request of $357 million marked the first time that the
Bush Administration sought less than $425 million for international family planning
activities. If UNFPA becomes eligible for U.S. support, a U.S. contribution of $25
million could be drawn from the $357 million request. This is the second year that
the Administration proposed that $25 million for UNFPA be drawn from its total
family planning request rather than in addition to amounts requested for bilateral
programs. It is also the second year that the Administration did not set aside a $25
million reserve in the IOP account.33
FY2007 foreign operations programs were funded under the terms of a
continuing resolution (H.R. 5631/P.L. 109-289, as amended), which provided
funding similar to the FY2006 level with some adjustments. Thus, the FY2007
funding level for bilateral family planning activities should be around $440 million
— the enacted level for bilateral population assistance activities in FY2006 (see
H.R. 3057/P.L. 109-102).
30 Ibid., Title III.
31 The Administration requests $301.7 million for family planning and reproductive health
activities. It also requests $14.3 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF), $7.1 million for
the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA), and $1.7 million for Eastern Europe and Baltic States
Assistance (SEED) for family planning and reproductive health programs.
32 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2008, p.
752, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf].
33 For the first four years of the Bush Administration, the budget request included a $25
million reserve for UNFPA funding in the International Organizations and Programs (IOP)
account. However, the Administration’s FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 budget proposals
did not set aside a reserve for UNFPA in the IOP account.

---

CRS-18
Other Legislation (110th Congress)
S. 1744, the Global Democracy Promotion Act, prohibits the application of
certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign NGOs. It would require that (1)
they shall not be ineligible for assistance solely on the basis of health, medical, or
counseling services provided by organizations with non-U.S. government funds if the
services do not violate the laws of the country where they are being provided, and (2)
they shall not be subject to requirements relating to the use of non-U.S. government
funds for advocacy and lobbying activities other than those that apply to U.S. NGOs.
Senator Barbara Boxer introduced the bill on June 28, 2007, and it was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
S. 2682, the United Nations Population Fund Restoration Act of 2008, provides
that U.S. contributions made available for UNFPA shall be used for the following:
(1) providing equipment, medicine, and supplies to ensure safe childbirth and
emergency obstetric care; (2) providing contraceptives to prevent unintended
pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; (3) treating and
preventing obstetric fistula; (4) reestablishing maternal health services in areas where
they have been destroyed; and (5) promoting the abandonment of harmful traditional
practices. Senator Hillary Clinton introduced the bill on February 29, 2008, and it
was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 619, the Global Democracy Promotion Act, prohibits the application of
certain restrictive eligibility requirements on foreign NGOs that provide development
and humanitarian assistance. The bill stipulates that foreign NGOs (1) shall not be
ineligible for assistance solely on the basis of health, medical, or counseling services
provided by organizations with non-U.S. government funds if the services do not
violate the laws of the country where they are being provided, and (2) shall not be
subject to requirements relating to the use of non-U.S. government funds for
advocacy and lobbying activities other than those that apply to U.S. NGOs.
Representative Nita Lowey introduced the bill on January 22, 2007, and it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 1095, the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2007, states that no
federal official may expend any federal funds for any population control or
population planning program or any family planning activities (including any
abortion procedure), regardless of whether the program or activity is foreign or
domestic. Representative Ron Paul introduced the bill on February 15, 2007, and it
was referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce. It
was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on February 16, 2007.
H.R. 1225, the Focus on Family Health Worldwide Act of 2007, seeks to amend
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to improve voluntary family planning programs
in developing countries. Activities supported by the bill include improving public
awareness of voluntary family planning programs and expanding training for heath
care providers. Representative Betty McCollum introduced the bill on February 28,
2007, and it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

---

CRS-19
H.R. 2114, the Repairing Young Women’s Lives Around the World Act,
provides “a United States voluntary contribution to the United Nations Population
Fund only for the prevention, treatment, and repair of obstetric fistula.”
Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced the bill on May 2, 2007, and it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 2367, the Ensuring Access to Contraceptives Act of 2007, amends the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to “authorize assistance to provide contraceptives in
developing countries in order to prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and the
transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.”
Representative Russ Carnahan introduced the bill on May 17, 2007, and it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 2604, the United Nations Population Fund Women’s Health and Dignity
Act, provides financial and other support to UNFPA to “carry out activities to save
women’s lives, limit the incidence of abortion and maternal mortality associated with
unsafe abortion ...[and] promote access to safe and reliable family planning.”
Representative Joseph Crowley introduced the bill on June 7, 2007, and it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.Con.Res. 220 strongly condemns the continued violations of human rights
by the government of China, including limitations on the number of children a
woman may bear and violent enforcement of birth limitations. The resolution urges
China to cease these policies and urges the U.N. Population Fund to end all of its
activities in China. Representative Christopher Smith introduced the resolution on
September 27, 2007, and it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

---