.

The U.N. Population Fund: Background and
the U.S. Funding Debate
Luisa Blanchfield
Analyst in International Relations
March 30, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32703
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
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 2007, the organization provided services in some 159 developing
and transition countries, with funds totaling $752.2 million, drawn exclusively from voluntary
contributions made by 182 nations and some foundations.
The United States, with strong support from Congress, was an important actor in the launch of
UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late 1960s, Congress began to express heightened concern
over the impact of rapid population growth on development prospects in poor countries. In 1967,
Congress earmarked funds for population assistance programs, urging the United States to
channel family planning resources through the United Nations and other international
organizations.
Since it was established, UNFPA has transitioned 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, held in Cairo. The Cairo Conference marked a turning point in the
international debate over the impact of population issues on global development, and established
a policy framework called the Plan of Action that continues to guide current family planning and
reproductive health policies, including the work of UNFPA. The Plan integrated population
concerns into the broad context of development—concluding that education and health, including
reproductive health, were prerequisites for sustainable development.
In the past 25 years, there has been continuing and contentious debate within the United States,
especially among Members of Congress, as to whether the United States should financially
support UNFPA. This debate has centered on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids China’s
coercive family planning programs and policies. In 15 of the past 25 years, the United States did
not contribute to the organization as a result of executive branch determinations that UNFPA’s
program in China violated the “Kemp-Kasten” amendment, which bans U.S. aid to organizations
involved in the management of coercive family planning programs. From FY2002 through
FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration found UNFPA ineligible for funding under the
Kemp-Kasten amendment. In March 2009, President Barack Obama expressed his support for
UNFPA and announced that the United States would contribute $50 million to UNFPA as directed
in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
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 Sweden
recently have been the largest contributors. Throughout the last decade, when the United States
has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S. contributions have represented about 8% of
UNFPA’s regular budget.
This report will be updated as policy changes or congressional actions warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

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

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
UNFPA: Origins and Operations ................................................................................................. 1
UNFPA and World Population Conferences: 1974 and 1984 .................................................. 2
The 1994 Cairo Conference and UNFPA’s Changing Mandate............................................... 2
UNFPA Operations Today ..................................................................................................... 4
Budget Trends................................................................................................................. 4
UNFPA Program Priorities .............................................................................................. 5
Regional and Country Program Focus ............................................................................. 6
U.S. Policy Towards UNFPA....................................................................................................... 7
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA............................................................................. 7
The Kemp-Kasten Amendment ............................................................................................. 9
Implementation and Court Challenges ........................................................................... 10
Reinterpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration ......................................... 11
George W. Bush Administration and the Kemp-Kasten Amendment .................................... 12
State Department Assessment and Findings ................................................................... 12
UNFPA Found in Violation of Kemp-Kasten by the Bush Administration ...................... 13
Barack Obama Administration Kemp-Kasten Determination ............................................... 14
Legislative Action, FY2008 and FY2009............................................................................. 14
FY2009 Appropriations................................................................................................. 14
FY2008 Appropriations................................................................................................. 15
UNFPA and China..................................................................................................................... 16
Investigations of UNFPA Programs in China ....................................................................... 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 ................................................................................ 18
Kemp-Kasten Application Beyond UNFPA ............................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure 1. UNFPA Program Functions 2007.................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. UNFPA Assistance by Region 2007 .............................................................................. 6

Tables
Table 1. UNFPA Income.............................................................................................................. 4
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors, 2000 to 2007 ..................................................................... 4
Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA ........................................................................................ 8

Congressional Research Service

---

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

Appendixes
Appendix. UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions, FY1985 to FY2009........ 19

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28

Congressional Research Service

---

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

Introduction
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 2007,
the year for which the most recent figures are available, the organization provided services in
some 159 developing and transition countries, with funds totaling $752.2 million, drawn
exclusively from voluntary contributions made by 182 nations and some foundations.
In the past 25 years, there has been continuing and contentious debate within the United States,
and especially among Members of Congress, as to whether the United States should financially
contribute to UNFPA. The debate has centered on the extent to which, if any, UNFPA aids
China’s coercive family planning programs and policies. In 10 of the past 25 years, the United
States has been one of the leading contributors to UNFPA. For the other 15 years, the United
States withheld funding to the organization through the so-called “Kemp-Kasten” amendment that
has been included in foreign operations appropriations since FY1985. Kemp-Kasten states that
U.S. funds will not be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the
President, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization.
From FY2002 through FY2008, the George W. Bush Administration found UNFPA ineligible for
U.S. funding under Kemp-Kasten, and transferred proposed annual contributions to other foreign
aid activities. On March 24, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that the United States
would contribute $50 million to UNFPA as directed in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8). Future U.S. contributions to UNFPA may be considered during the 111th Congress as
part of the debate on the annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill and other foreign policy
legislation.
This report provides an overview of the U.N. Population Fund, its current mission and operations,
and recent funding trends. It further discusses the role of the United States in supporting UNFPA
programs the varying interpretations by several Administrations of legislative authorities
pertaining to UNFPA’s eligibility for American resources, and congressional debates over how
much and under what conditions the United States should voluntarily contribute to UNFPA.
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: Origins and Operations
The United Nations, since its earliest days, has maintained an interest in population issues. In
1947, the United Nations established a Population Commission that collected and analyzed global
population data and supported member government efforts to examine information about national
populations. Following several years of U.N. debate over the rapid rise of the world’s population,
the General Assembly approved a resolution in 1966 calling on the United Nations and other
international organizations to extend technical assistance on population matters.
In 1967, the U.N. Secretary-General created a Trust Fund for Population Activities, which in 1969
was renamed the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Initially, UNFPA was
administered by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the organization’s primary
Congressional Research Service
1

---

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

international development organ. Within a few years, at the direction of the General Assembly,
UNFPA had expanded its operations beyond statistical collection and analysis to the provision of
maternal and child health/family planning, communication and education, and population policy
assistance. By 1972, UNFPA was operating in 78 countries with a budget of over $30 million.
With such rapid growth in the Fund’s scope and programs, UNFPA became a separate entity
under the direct authority of the General Assembly, with the same status as UNDP and the U.N.
Children’s Fund (UNICEF).1
In these initial years, the United States provided the majority of UNFPA funding through
voluntary contributions. In 1968 and 1969, when seven governments extended financial support,
the $4 million transfer by the United States represented nearly 80% of total contributions. By
1972, the number of donors had grown to 52, but the United States remained by far the largest
source of funds, with 46% of the total. Over the next decade, the U.S. share declined to about
25% as other nations increased their contributions.
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;
• 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

1 “UNFPA: What it Is; What it Does,” UNFPA, 1983; and “UNFPA at 30 Years—Fact Sheets,” UNFPA, October 26,
1999. (Hereafter cited as UNFPA, What it Is; What it Does.)
2 UNFPA. What it Is; What it Does. 1983.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

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

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

3 See CRS Report 94-533, Population and Development: The 1994 Cairo Conference, by Curt Tarnoff. (Archived;
available on request from author).
4 UNFPA Background. Found at UNFPA website http://www.unfpa.org/hiv/index.htm.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

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

UNFPA Operations Today
Budget Trends
Table 1. UNFPA Income
(current $ in millions)
With total income of $752.2 million, the 2007
UNFPA budget was its largest in recent years
Year
Regular
Supplemental
Total
(see Table 1). UNFPA derives most of its
income from voluntary contributions to its
97
$293
$33
$326
regular budget which finances continuing core
98
$273
$36
$309
country programs and the organization’s
99
$250
$38
$288
administrative costs. A growing but less
00
$262
$104
$366
flexible source of revenue has been from
supplementary donations that are provided
01
$268
$128
$396
either for cost-sharing purposes or for
02
$260
$113
$373
placement in trust funds. Through
03
$292
$106
$398
supplementary resource transfers, donors can
earmark exactly how their contributions will
04
$332
$174
$506
be spent. In 2000, for example, the
05
$366
$199
$565
Netherlands provided $41 million specifically
06
$389
$216
$605
to procure contraceptive commodities.
07
$457
$295
$752
While UNFPA receives voluntary
Source: UNFPA annual reports
contributions from many countries—182 in
2007—and from some private foundations, most of its income for regular country programs and
operating expenses comes from a handful of donors. In the past seven years, approximately 65%
to 75% of UNFPA’s regular income has come from six country donors (see Table 2). The
Netherlands and Japan have consistently been the largest contributors. In years when the United
States has contributed to UNFPA programs, the U.S. transfer has represented about 8% of
UNFPA’s regular budget, making it the 5th or 6th largest donor in those years.
Table 2. UNFPA Major Contributors, 2000 to 2007
(contribution as a % of UNFPA regular income)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Netherlands
19.3% 18.8% 21.1% 23.1% 21.8% 20.8% 19.3% 17.5%
Japan
18.4% 18.2% 15.2% 13.5% 11.9% 10.2% 8.5% 7.3%
Norway
8.8% 9.0% 9.7% 11.3% 10.0% 10.3% 10.5% 12.8%
Denmark
9.1% 8.8% 8.7% 8.7% 8.9% 8.4% 8.0% 7.1%
U.K.
8.5% 8.2% 10.2% 10.3% 11.1% 10.0% 9.7% 8.8%
Sweden
7.1% 6.2% 7.3% 8.2% 10.8% 13.3% 14.2% 13.3%
United
States
8.2% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source: UNFPA annual reports, 2000 to 2007.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

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

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

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

---

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

Figure 1. UNFPA Program Functions 2007

Figure 2. UNFPA Assistance by Region 2007

In the 15 years since the Cairo Conference, UNFPA has allocated roughly 60% of its annual
resources to reproductive health and family planning service programs and 20% to strategies for
population and development. The balance of UNFPA spending focuses on coordinating activities,
gender equity, and women’s empowerment programs.6 (See Figure 1 for UNFPA program
functions in 2007.)
Regional and Country Program Focus
Over the past decade, roughly 33% of UNFPA programs have been carried out in sub-Saharan
Africa, with an additional 28% focused in Asia. In 2007, UNFPA maintained its largest program
in Mozambique ($27 million), followed by Sudan ($21.5 million), the Democratic Republic of the
Congo ($13.9 million), and India ($13.4 million). UNFPA program expenditures in China have
ranged between $4 million and $5 million annually in recent years. In 2007, UNFPA contributed
approximately $4.1 million to projects in China. (See Figure 2 for UNFPA assistance by region in
2007.)

6 UNFPA. Annual Report 2007. Additional data also drawn from prior-year annual reports. UNFPA’s 2008 annual
report has not yet been published.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

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

U.S. Policy Towards UNFPA
The United States was an important actor in the launch of UNFPA in 1969. During the mid-to-late
1960s, Congress began to express heightened concern over the impact of rapid population growth
on development prospects in poor countries, noting that the world’s population was growing by
about 2% annually compared with only a 1% growth in food production. In 1967, for the first
time, Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to specifically authorize and earmark
funds for population assistance programs, urging the United States especially to channel family
planning resources through the United Nations and other international organizations. Some
Members believed that such earmarks were necessary because the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) had not been giving the issue adequate
attention.7
These initial U.S. contributions, however, were conditioned on the requirement that other donors
match the American payment in an equal amount. This incentive helped UNFPA exceed its 1970
projected resource goal when 22 other countries contributed a combined $7.7 million. In 1971,
with the same matching requirement tied to the U.S. pledge of $15 million, UNFPA received
donations of $14.5 million from 45 nations.8 As shown in Table 3, U.S. contributions continued
to climb throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. At the same time, however, the number and size
of transfers from other donors rose faster, so that the share of UNFPA resources from the United
States declined from 50% to around 27%.
The largest UNFPA contribution earmarked by Congress—$46 million—was enacted in the
FY1985 foreign aid appropriation, P.L. 98-461. However, only a portion of these funds—$36
million—was transferred to the organization as U.S. policy and its support for UNFPA shifted.
1984 Review of U.S. Funding for UNFPA
In August 1984, government representatives from around the world met in Mexico City for the
2nd U.N. International Conference on Population. At the conference, the Ronald Reagan
Administration announced new eligibility requirements for organizations receiving U.S. bilateral
population assistance funds. The new policy stipulated that no non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) that received population assistance funding from the United States could actively
promote or perform abortion as a family planning method other countries. This change became
known as the “Mexico City policy” and was applied by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush
Administrations for nine years, reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instituted by
President George W. Bush in 2001.9

7 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Foreign Assistance Act of 1967; report to accompany S.
1872. S.Rept. 90-499. August 9, 1967, p. 24.
8 U.S. Agency for International Development. Development and Humanitarian Assistance; FY1973 Program
Presentation to Congress. p. L-15.
9 For a discussion of the Mexico City policy and its eligibility requirements, see CRS Report RL30830, International
Family Planning: The “Mexico City” Policy, by Larry Nowels.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

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

Table 3. U.S. Contributions to UNFPA
(current $ in millions)
Fiscal
U.S.
% of Total UNFPA
Fiscal
U.S.
% of Total UNFPA
Year
Contribution
Funds
Year
Contribution
Funds
1968 $1.7 79.3%
1990 $0.0 —
1969 $2.3 79.3%
1991 $0.0 —
1970 $7.5 50.0%
1992 $0.0 —
1971 $14.2 50.0%
1993 $0.0 —
1972 $14.0 46.1%
1994 $40.0 15.1%
1973 $17.9 42.2%
1995 $35.0 11.2%
1974 $20.0 37.0%
1996 $22.8 7.4%
1975 $20.0 31.7%
1997 $25.0 8.6%
1976 $20.0 25.2%
1998 $20.0 7.2%
1977 $29.0 31.6%
1999 $0.0 —
1978 $28.0 27.2%
2000 $21.5 8.1%
1979 $30.0 26.7%
2001 $21.5 8.0%
1980 $32.0 25.7%
2002 $0.0 —
1981 $32.0 26.3%
2003 $0.0 —
1982 $33.8 26.1%
2004 $0.0 —
1983 $33.8 26.1%
2005 $0.0 —
1984 $38.2 27.5%
2006 $0.0 —
1985 $36.0 27.3%
2007 $0.0 —
1986 $0.0 —
2008 $0.0 —
1987 $0.0 —
2009
$50.0 TBD
1988 $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.
USAID, which at the time maintained responsibility for managing UNFPA contributions,
undertook a review in early 1985 of UNFPA’s program, especially in China, to determine whether
Congressional Research Service
8

---

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

the organization was involved in any way with involuntary abortions.10 In March 1985 that
review found that UNFPA did not include involuntary abortion as part of its programs, and
therefore did not violate legislative restrictions or conditions announced at the Mexico City
Conference on funding organizations engaged in involuntary practices.11
As a result, UNFPA remained eligible for U.S. support but did not receive the full earmarked
amount of $46 million. On March 30, 1985, USAID contributed $36 million to UNFPA,
withholding $10 million “to express United States disapproval of coercion in the implementation
of the China population control program.”12 The $10 million matched roughly the amount
UNFPA spent annually in China. Because AID wanted to re-program the $10 million for other
bilateral population assistance programs, the Administration needed to overcome the specific
legislative earmark of $46 million in the FY1985 appropriation. Accordingly, the White House
requested authority as part of an FY1985 supplemental appropriation submission to shift $10
million from UNFPA to other population aid groups.
The Kemp-Kasten Amendment
Rather than approve the Reagan Administration’s request for authority to transfer the $10 million
from UNFPA, Congress agreed to the “Kemp-Kasten” amendment as part of the FY1985
Supplemental Appropriations bill, H.R. 2577.13 The amendment states that U.S. funds would not
be made available to “any organization or program which, as determined by the President,
supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.”14 The House Appropriations Committee did not provide details on what was meant
by the phrase, “support or participate in the management” of a program. However, in the
“additional views” section of the Committee Report, Representative Jack Kemp stated that
management of coercive programs may include providing resources to collect and analyze data
necessary to the enforcement of such a program; training of the individuals who plan, manage,
and carry out such a program, education and publicity about the programs; assistance to the
official bodies of government that are charged with developing and implementing such a
program; and other such assistance.15
Congressman Kemp also stated that the amendment would most likely affect U.S. funding of the
UNFPA, “because of its involvement with the program of coercive abortion in the People’s

10 More recently, responsibility for UNFPA voluntary contributions has shifted to the State Department and the Bureau
of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
11 Action Memorandum for the Administrator/Acting Director of IDCA. 1985 Funding for the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities (UNFPA), September 25, 1985, p. 1.
12 Ibid.
13 Initially, the amendment was referred to as the Kemp-Inouye provision, so named after its original sponsors,
Representative Jack Kemp, ranking Member of the House Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee, and
Senator Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Assistance Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator
Inouye later opposed the Administration’s decision not to fund UNFPA, as well as the fact that the decision was
delegated from the President to the Secretary of State to the Administrator for USAID. For the next several years,
Senator Bob Kasten, Chairman/Ranking Minority Member of the Foreign Assistance Subcommittee, was a strong
supporter of the amendment, and the provision came to be referred to as “Kemp-Kasten.”
14 S.Amdt. 338 to H.R. 2577, 99th Congress, June 20, 1985. Enacted as P.L. 99-88.
15 U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. Supplemental Appropriations, 1985, H.Rept. 99-142, May 22, 1985, p.
86.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

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

Republic of China.”16 The Kemp-Kasten amendment was enacted on August 15, 1985, as part of
the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88).
Implementation and Court Challenges
Despite the directive from the amendment that the President, or alternatively the Secretary of
State, issue any determination regarding the Kemp-Kasten amendment, President Reagan
delegated his authority to the Secretary of State on September 19, 1985,17 who in turn authorized
the re-delegation of this authority to the Director of the International Development Cooperation
Agency (IDCA).18 On September 25, 1985, IDCA Administrator Peter McPherson announced the
Administration’s determination that UNFPA, because of its activities in China, was participating
in the management of a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. In letters to
congressional leaders, Administrator McPherson cited Representative Kemp’s interpretation, as
set out in his additional views in H.Rept. 99-142, of what characterized the participation of an
organization in a coercive abortion program. The Administrator concluded that China’s “one-
child- per-couple policy has resulted in coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization.”19
The Reagan Administrator further announced that since the Kemp-Kasten amendment and his
determination under it now superseded the $46 million UNFPA earmark for FY1985, USAID
would reprogram $10 million for voluntary family planning programs for use elsewhere in the
world. He also stated that if Kemp-Inouye was enacted again in FY1986 (see footnote 13),
UNFPA could receive funds under only three conditions: (1) UNFPA withdraws its program from
China; (2) China would begin to punish abuses concerning coercive abortion and involuntary
sterilizations; or (3) UNFPA “radically” changes its program in China, such as by supplying only
contraceptive materials.20
Almost immediately, the Population Institute, an NGO, filed suit against Administrator
McPherson and the U.S. government to block the redirection of UNFPA funds and invalidate the
determination. On August 12, 1986, the Court upheld the Administration’s decision to withhold
UNFPA funding.
From 1986 to 1992, USAID continued to request funds for UNFPA, although with the
understanding that a decision on whether to transfer the money would be reviewed under the
terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which Congress also continued to enact each year in the
foreign assistance appropriations. In each year, USAID found that UNFPA was ineligible for U.S.
support.

16 Ibid.
17 A USAID memorandum drafted at the time noted that the Administration did not view congressional expectations
that the President (or if delegated, the Secretary of State) should make the determination for UNFPA funding as legally
binding. However, it was “considered significant” by the executive branch.
18 IDCA had been established by Congress as a government entity to oversee and coordinate the activities of all U.S.
foreign aid agencies, and the IDCA Director served simultaneously as the USAID Administrator.
19 Letter from IDCA Acting Director Peter McPherson to Senator Hatfield, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, September 25, 1985, p. 2.
20 Ibid, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

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

Reinterpretation of Kemp-Kasten by the Clinton Administration
The issue of coercive practices within China’s family planning program and the role of UNFPA
remained controversial throughout the Clinton Administration. As one of his first acts as chief
executive, President Clinton reversed the Mexico City policy of Presidents Reagan and Bush, and
issued a determination finding that UNFPA programs in China did not violate the terms of Kemp-
Kasten. The policy reversal was based on several factors, including:
• Ambiguity of the Kemp-Kasten language—The Administration noted that the
Court of Appeals, in considering the case brought by the Population Institute,
deferred to the USAID interpretation of Kemp-Kasten because it was a
“reasonable reading of an ambiguous provision and did not otherwise conflict
with the expressed intention of Congress.” The Administration argued that
because of this ambiguity, the new Administration had a right to interpret Kemp-
Kasten for itself.
• Over-reliance on the 1985 statements by Representative Kemp—The
Administration pointed especially to the 1985 Court of Appeals opinion that
questioned the relevance of the additional views of Representative Kemp
interpreting the Kemp-Inouye amendment. The Court observed that, although the
Administration considered Representative Kemp’s remarks as the clearest
explanation of an “ambiguous term,” Congressman Kemp could not convince his
colleagues to adopt his views in the committee report itself.
• Focus should be on the terms “coercive” and “involuntary” and the intent of
the organization in question—The Clinton Administration believed that it was
reasonable to apply the Kemp-Kasten restrictions only in cases where the
organization knowingly and intentionally provided direct support for, or helped
manage people or agencies who were clearly engaged in, coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization. The Administration concluded that although it remained
concerned about coercive practices in China, it believed that UNFPA did not
“knowingly” or “intentionally” support directly such practices.21
Congress continued to include Kemp-Kasten language in Foreign Operations Appropriations acts,
and in most years attached additional conditions on UNFPA contributions that required the
organization to (1) keep U.S. funds in a separate account, (2) not spend U.S. money in China, and
(3) to forego transfers from the United States equal to the amount UNFPA allocated for its China
program. In some years, the United States withheld about $3.5 million from UNFPA, an amount
that approximated the size of UNFPA’s expenditures in China.
For a brief period in 1997, the controversy over whether to fund UNFPA subsided when UNFPA’s
program in China expired and new activities did not resume immediately. Nevertheless, despite
opposition from the United States, UNFPA re-established a program in China, and in FY1999
appropriation legislation, Congress prohibited all U.S. contributions to the organization. Congress
restored funding in FY2000, 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

21 These policy views are drawn from letters of USAID Administrator Brian Atwood to Senator Helms, dated August 6
and September 10, 1993.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

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

FY2001. (See the Appendix for details on Administration actions and legislative restrictions
regarding UNFPA funding from FY1985 to FY2009.)
George W. Bush Administration and the Kemp-Kasten Amendment
The first budget submitted by President Bush for FY2002 included a proposed $25 million U.S.
contribution to UNFPA. While the new Administration reinstated 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 Operations bills that had been fulfilled
by the Clinton Administration, minus the withholding requirement.
However, in the face of the conflicting evidence released in late 2001 by the Guy and Biegman
investigation teams (see section “UNFPA and China” for further details on the group’s findings),
in mid-January 2002, the White House placed a hold on U.S. contributions to UNFPA pending a
review of the organization’s program in China. In a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on February 27, 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and
Migration Arthur Dewey noted that the legislative text regarding UNFPA funding—“not more
than $34 million”—gave the Administration considerable discretion over exactly how much to
provide UNFPA. While stating that the United States supported UNFPA’s work worldwide to
provide safe and voluntary family planning, enhance maternal and infant health, and prevent the
spread of HIV/AIDS, the Administration remained concerned about periodic reports of abuse and
coercion in China’s family planning program. Given new information and the requirements of the
Kemp-Kasten amendment, Assistant Secretary Dewey argued that the State Department was
obligated to investigate the matter further before releasing any funds in FY2002.22
State Department Assessment and Findings
The State Department sent an investigation team to China for a two-week review of UNFPA
programs on May 13, 2002. The team was led by former Ambassador William Brown, and
included Bonnie Glick, a former State Department official, and Dr. Theodore Tong, a public
health professor at the University of Arizona. The State Department’s assessment team filed its
report with Secretary Powell on May 29, making a series of findings and recommendations.23 The
group found that:
• There was no evidence that UNFPA “has knowingly supported or participated in
the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in
China;

22 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Funding for the U.N. Population Fund: The Effect on Women’s Lives.
Committee Hearings, February 2002.
23 Report of the China UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Independent Assessment Team, released by the Department of
State on May 29, 2002. See http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/rpt/2002/12122.htm for the report’s full text.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

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

• 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 (1) the
United States should release not more than $34 million of previously appropriated funds to
UNFPA; (2) 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 (3) 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 by the Bush Administration
President Bush withheld U.S. funding from UNFPA from FY2002 through FY2008 due to
concerns that the organization supported or participated in what the Administration viewed as a
program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization in China. These decisions were made
in response to the findings and recommendations of the Brown investigation. The Administration
consistently maintained that it would be willing to reconsider its position if UNFPA ended its
program in China or if the program was restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law.24
On July 22, 2002, then-Secretary of State Powell, to whom President Bush had delegated the
decision, announced that UNFPA remained in violation of Kemp-Kasten and ineligible for U.S.
funding. The State Department’s analysis of the Secretary’s determination found that even though
UNFPA did not “knowingly” support or participate in a coercive practice, that alone would not
preclude the application of Kemp-Kasten. Instead, a finding that the recipient of U.S. funds—in
this case UNFPA—simply supports or participates in such a program, whether knowingly or
unknowingly, would trigger the restriction. The assessment team found that the Chinese
government imposes fines and penalties on families (“social compensation fees”) that have
children exceeding the number approved by the government. The Department further noted that
UNFPA had funded computers and data-processing equipment that had helped strengthen the
management of the Chinese State Family Planning Commission. Beyond the legitimate uses of
these and other items financed by UNFPA, such equipment facilitated, in the view of the State
Department, China’s ability to impose social compensation fees or perform abortions by coercion.
The State Department analysis concluded that UNFPA’s involvement in China’s family planning
program “allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive
abortion.”25

24 In 2008, for example, a Bush Administration 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.” See 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.
25 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.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

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

Barack Obama Administration Kemp-Kasten Determination
President Barack Obama has demonstrated his support for UNFPA. On March 24, 2009, a State
Department spokesperson confirmed that the U.S. government would contribute $50 million to
UNFPA in FY2009 as provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). This
decision, according to Administration officials, highlights the President’s “strong commitment” to
international family planning, women’s health, and global development.26 The FY2009 U.S.
contribution to UNFPA represents a $10 million increase over the next largest contribution of $40
million in FY1994.
Legislative Action, FY2008 and FY2009
This section addresses the most recent legislative actions regarding U.S. contributions to UNFPA.
See the Appendix for a description of Administration activities and legislative actions since 1985.
FY2009 Appropriations
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
Division H of that bill, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2009, allocated $50 million for UNFPA. It specified that not more than $30
million of this amount shall be derived from the International Organizations and Programs
(IO&P) account. The remaining amount shall be made available from the Global Health and
Child Survival account.27
Sec. 7079 of the P.L. 111-8 establishes a number of conditions for U.S. contributions to UNFPA.
Specifically, none of the funds made available may be used by UNFPA for a country program in
China.28 In addition:
• Funds appropriated by the Act “that are not made available because of the
operation of any provision of law, shall be made available to UNFPA
notwithstanding any such provision of law.” Some have expressed concern that
this provision takes away the authority of the President to determine whether
UNFPA is eligible for U.S. contributions under the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
• U.S. contributions to UNFPA shall be made available for specific purposes,
including (1) providing and distributing safe equipment, medicine and supplies;
(2) supplying contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of
sexually transmitted diseases; (3) preventing and treating obstetric fistula; (4)

26 Department of State press release, “U.S. Government Support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),”
March 24, 2009.
27 Sec. 7079, Divisions H - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009,
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8, March 11, 2009).
28 The bill also establishes related reporting requirements for the Secretary-of-State. No later than 60 days after the
enactment of P.L. 111-8, the Secretary is required to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations indicating
the funds UNFPA is budgeting for a country program in China. If the Secretary’s report indicates that funds will be
spent on such a program, then the amount of such funds shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA for
the remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted. (See Sec. 7079(e)(1) and (e)(2).)

Congressional Research Service
14

---

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

reestablishing maternal health services in areas with poor infrastructure; (5)
promoting the abandonment of female genital cutting; and (6) promoting access
to basic services such as water, sanitation, food, and health care.
• U.S. contributions to UNFPA must be kept in a separate account by the
organization and should not commingle with other sums.
• For UNFPA to receive U.S. funding, it must not fund abortions.
On March 24, 2009, the Obama Administration announced that the United States would
contribute $50 million (as directed in P.L. 111-8) to UNFPA under the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
The Bush Administration had previously requested $25 million for UNFPA funding if the
organization was deemed eligible under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds would be
appropriated under the Child Survival and Health Programs account.29
FY2008 Appropriations
The Bush Administration proposed that $25 million be made available to UNFPA if it became
eligible for funding under the terms of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The funds would be drawn
from Child Survival and Health Programs account.30 On June 26, 2008, however, the Bush
Administration announced that UNFPA was ineligible for FY2008 funding under the Kemp-
Kasten amendment.31
On December 26, 2007, Congress passed H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161), which directed that $40 million be made available to UNFPA from the Global
Health and Child Survival account, with no less than $7 million derived from the International
Organizations and Programs (IOP) account. Section 660 of P.L. 110-161 required the Secretary of
State to submit a report on UNFPA funding to the Appropriations Committees no later than four
months after the bill was enacted. According to the Act, the report to the Secretary of State “shall
indicate the amount of funds that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in which the report is
submitted for a country program in the People’s Republic of China.” If the Secretary of State’s
report indicates that UNFPA funds will be used for a program in China, then the funds “shall be
deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the
remainder of the fiscal year in which the report is submitted.” The provision also stated, “Nothing
in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any
organization by reason of the application of another provision of this Act or any other provision
of law.”
Title III of P.L. 110-161 established a reporting requirement for Administration decisions made
under the Kemp-Kasten amendment. The Act directed that any determination “must be made no
later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, and must be accompanied by a
comprehensive analysis as well as the complete evidence and criteria utilized to make the

29 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, FY2009, p. 815, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/FY2009/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf.
30 Appendix, Congressional Budget Justification, Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2008, p. 752, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/sta.pdf.
31 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

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

determination.” In past years, the Bush Administration 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 required the Administration to announce its
decision by June, and to provide comprehensive analysis and evidence to support its position.
UNFPA and China
One issue that has been debated among many Members of Congress and past and current
Administrations involves whether, and to what extent, UNFPA programs in China violate the
Kemp-Kasten amendment. As previously mentioned, initial UNFPA programs in China
concentrated on bolstering China’s capacity for data collection and analysis, and maternal and
child health/family planning activities. Following the Cairo population conference in 1994 and
the conclusion of UNFPA’s third Chinese program, UNFPA and Beijing officials began to discuss
significant changes for a fourth agreement that would more closely follow the principles set out in
Cairo.
The subsequent UNFPA program, launched in 1998, concentrated efforts in 32 counties where
birth targets and quotas had been eliminated by the Chinese government. The fourth program
shifted from a more administrative family planning approach—focusing on population control
and imposed contraceptive methods and orders—to an “integrated, client-oriented reproductive
health approach in the project counties” that included education and counseling regarding
informed choice of contraceptive methods and reproductive health rights. According to UNFPA,
service delivery points were upgraded to offer integrated reproductive health services in both the
Chinese State Family Planning Commission and the Ministry of Health. UNFPA said that there
had been a “downward trend” in the abortion ratio in these counties, and that the organization had
played a “catalytic role in introducing a comprehensive, voluntary reproductive health approach,”
that included rigorous monitoring of the projects.32 The fifth program, covering the period 2003-
2005, expanded many of the earlier initiatives.
In June 2005, UNFPA approved a sixth program for China that began in 2006 and is to span five
years. The $27 million program is to build on the policy changes made in 1998 and includes two
components. The reproductive health element seeks to increase the utilization of high-quality,
client-centered, gender-sensitive reproductive health and family planning services, and to reduce
the vulnerability and risk behavior associated with HIV/AIDS among migrants, young people,
and other vulnerable groups. The population and development component centers on
strengthening the government’s capacity for addressing population-related policies, especially
those regarding gender, migration, and aging issues, and enhancing the government’s ability to
collect and apply surveillance data, particularly data related to HIV/AIDS.33
Investigations of UNFPA Programs in China
During implementation of the fourth and fifth programs, UNFPA’s operations in China have been
closely scrutinized by several investigatory teams, including one dispatched by the State

32 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.
33 UNFPA, Country Programme Document for China. DP/FPA/CPD/CHN/6, October 10, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

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

Department in 2002. Most of these groups concluded that UNFPA was not involved in supporting
coercive or involuntary family planning programs in China, although one—sponsored by the
Population Research Institute (PRI)—concluded otherwise. These conflicting reports, together
with continuing reviews of UNFPA practices in China and varying interpretations by U.S.
officials, sparked renewed controversy and extensive congressional debate beginning in 2001
over the appropriate role of the United States in financially supporting UNFPA operations
worldwide. The four non-U.S. government sponsored investigations came to the following
conclusions.
The Population Research Institute
PRI’s report concluded that UNFPA “directly supports coercive family planning with funding,
and through its complicity with the implementation of policies which are fundamentally coercive
in principle and practice.” The PRI team, led by Josephine Guy, spent four days in Sihui County,
Guangdong Province, in late September 2001, conducting numerous interviews with alleged
victims and witnesses of coercive practices. According to the team’s interview notes and videos,
non-voluntary abortions and use of IUDs, mandatory examinations, and punishment for non-
compliance—both imprisonment and economic fines—continued in this county which was
among the 32 in which UNFPA supported programs.34
The Biegman Group
This team found that UNFPA plays a “positive and important catalytic role in the reform of
reproductive health and family planning services in China” and in moving China away from
coercive family planning practices and abuses. It recommended that UNFPA continue its program
in China and expand its scope and resources in the future.35 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

34 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.
35 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.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

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

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.”36
The Interfaith Delegation to China
This group returned from a September 2003 visit finding, among other things, that the Chinese
government was taking steps to end coercive family planning practices, that UNFPA was a major
force in China’s transition to voluntary policies, and that UNFPA did not support or participate in
managing China’s family planning program. While the group acknowledged that in such a brief
trip it could not gain a comprehensive view of China’s family planning activities or the work of
UNFPA, it felt confident in recommending that the United States should maintain a policy of
constructive engagement with China regarding family planning matters, and that U.S. funding for
UNFPA should be restored, and the Kemp-Kasten amendment revised. The nine-member mission
was sponsored by Catholics for a Free Choice.37
Kemp-Kasten Application Beyond UNFPA
Critics of the Administration policy, including some Members of Congress, have expressed
concern over what they perceive to be a shift in the interpretation of Kemp-Kasten restrictions
related to UNFPA and other international organizations. They point to a USAID notification to
the Global Health Council that the agency would not provide funding for the Council’s 31st
annual meeting in June 2004 because UNFPA would be a participant. Some believe that this
represented a State Department warning to UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and other
organizations that continued involvement in joint programs with UNFPA might jeopardize their
funding support from the United States.38
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.”39 On August 11, 2003,
however, the Consortium declined to accept the $1 million grant due to the exclusion of Marie
Stopes International.

36 China Mission Report by UK MP’s, 1st April - 9th April 2002. Found at http://www.appg-popdevrh.org.uk.
37 Catholics for a Free Choice. The United Nations Population Fund in China: A Catalyst for Change. Report of an
Interfaith Delegation to China. 2003.
38 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.
39 Details for Funding the Reproductive Health Consortium (Taken Question), Office of the State Department’s
Spokesman, August 27, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.

Appendix. UNFPA Administration Policy and Legislative Conditions, FY1985
to FY2009
Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy Outcome
Regular FY1985 appropriation:
—Not less than $46 million, or 16% of Population Assistance, whichever is
lower, shall be made available for UNFPA.
UNFPA received $36 million, after the
1985 $26
million for UNFPA.
withholding of $10 million to express U.S.
****************************************
disapproval of coercion in China’s family planning
program.
Supplemental FY1985 appropriation:
—Kemp-Kasten conditions first enacted.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1986 $38
million for UNFPA.
No UNFPA funding.
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1987
$32 million for UNFPA, subject
to Kemp-Kasten.
No UNFPA funding.
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1988
$25 million for UNFPA, subject
to Kemp-Kasten.
No UNFPA funding
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1989
$20 million for UNFPA, subject
to Kemp-Kasten.
No UNFPA funding.
—No specific UNFPA provision.
CRS-19

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy 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 UNFPA does not commingle amounts with other sums.
No UNFPA funding
1990
$19.39 million for UNFPA,
subject to Kemp-Kasten.
—Entire $15 million shall be refunded if any used by UNFPA for family
Earlier, $15 million appropriation for UNFPA
planning programs in China or used for any abortion related activity in any
vetoed by the President.
country.
****************************************
Subsequent appropriation signed by the President:
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1991
$10 million for UNFPA, subject
to Kemp-Kasten
No UNFPA funding
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1992
$10 million for UNFPA, subject
to Kemp-Kasten.
No UNFPA funding
—No specific UNFPA provision.
—Kemp-Kasten conditions.
1993
No UNFPA funding.
No UNFPA funding.
—No specific UNFPA provision.
CRS-20

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy 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 not commingle amounts with other sums.
1994 $50
million for UNFPA.
UNFPA received $40 million from the United
—Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before
States.
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.
—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.
—Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before
1995 $60
million for UNFPA.
March 1, 1995.
UNFPA received $35 million from the United
States, after a rescission of $15 million.
—Secretary of State report to Congress by Feb. 15, 1995, regarding the
amount of UNFPA’s 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-21

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy 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.
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate
account and does not commingle amounts with other sums.
1996 $55
million for UNFPA.
UNFPA received $22.8 million from the United
—Not more than half of the UNFPA contribution may be provided before
States, after a withholding of $7.2 million.
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
1997 $30
million for UNFPA.
account and does not commingle amounts with other sums.
UNFPA received $25 million from the United
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.
—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
1998 $30
million for UNFPA.
account and does not commingle amounts with other sums.
UNFPA received $20 million from the United
States, after a withholding 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.
CRS-22

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy Outcome
—No funds may be made available for UNFPA.
1999 $25
million for UNFPA.
UNFPA received no funding from the United
—Kemp-Kasten conditions included in enacted appropriation.
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.
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate
2000 $25
million for UNFPA.
UNFPA received $21.5 million from the United
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund
States, after a with-holding of $3.5 million.
abortions.
—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.
—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
2001 $25
million for UNFPA.
UNFPA received $21.5 million from the United
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund
States, after a withholding of $3.5 million.
abortions.
—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.
—Not more than $34 million shall be made available for UNFPA, subject to
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was
Kemp-Kasten conditions.
not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
—No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
UNFPA received no funding from the United
2002 $25
million for UNFPA.
States.
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and does not fund
FY2002 UNFPA funds reprogrammed for bilateral
abortions.
family planning/ maternal & re-productive health
activities in several developing countries.
CRS-23

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy Outcome
—Not more than $34 million in FY2002 appropriations and an equal amount
from FY2003 appropriations shall be available for UNFPA if the President
President did not issue a finding that UNFPA no
determines that UNFPA no longer supports or participates in the
longer supports or participates in the management
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.
—No funds for UNFPA may be used in China.
$25 million “reserve” available for
UNFPA received no funding from the United
2003
UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
—Other abortion restrictions in this act or in the FY2002 appropriation shall States.
conditions.
apply to UNFPA funding.
FY2003 UNFPA funds reprogrammed for
—FY2002 conditions on UNFPA funding shal apply to FY2003
assistance for “vulnerable children” and made
appropriations.
available for a new initiative for assistance for
young women, mothers and children who are
—UNFPA funds deducted by the amount UNFPA spends in China in 2002
victims of trafficking in persons.
and 2003.
—Up to $34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was
not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
—FY2002 UNFPA funds shal be made available for family planning, maternal
& reproductive health activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
UNFPA received no funding from the United
Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Haiti, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia,
States.
Albania, Romania, and Kazakhstan.
$25 million reserve available for
FY2004 UNFPA funds transferred to the
2004
UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
—FY2003 UNFPA funds shal be al ocated for assistance for “vulnerable
Economic Support Fund account, with the
conditions.
children” and made available for a new initiative for assistance for young
intention to use in support of anti-trafficking in
women, mothers and children who are victims of trafficking in persons.
persons programs. Subsequently, FY2005 Foreign
Operations Appropriations directed that of the
—No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
FY2004 funds not provided to UNFPA, $12.5
million shall be available for anti-trafficking
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate programs, and $12.5 million shall be available for
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does
AID family planning programs.
not fund abortions.
CRS-24

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy 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 commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does
not fund abortions.
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was
not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
$25 million reserve available for
—If FY2005 funds are not made available to UNFPA, they shal be
2005
UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
transferred to the Child Survival/Health account and used by USAID for
UNFPA received no funding from the United
conditions.
family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities.
States.
—Of the FY2004 funds earmarked for UNFPA, $12.5 million shall be

available for anti-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.

—$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 commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does
If UNFPA determined eligible for
not fund abortions.
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was
U.S. funds under the terms of
not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
2006
Kemp-Kasten, $25 million could
—Of the $34 million, $22.5 million shall be derived from the State
be drawn from USAID’s Child
Department’s International Organization and Programs account (IOP), with
UNFPA received no funding from the United
Survival and Health Account.
the remainder from the Child Survival and Health account (CSH).
States.
—Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available
for UNFPA, the funds shal be transferred to the CSH account, and shal be
made available for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health
services.

CRS-25

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy Outcome
Per H.R. 5522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill:
—$34 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
Pending under continuing resolution
If UNFPA determined eligible for
—No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
P.L. 109-289, as amended by
U.S. funds under the terms of
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate
Kemp-Kasten, $25 million could
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does
P.L. 110-5
2007
be drawn from the proposed
not fund abortions.
family planning/ reproductive
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA was
health program budget of $357
—Of the $34 million, $22.275 million shall be derived from the State
not eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
million.
Department’s IOP account, with the remainder from the Child Survival and
UNFPA received no funding from the United
Health account (CSH).
States.
—Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available
for UNFPA, the funds shal be transferred to the CSH account, and shal be
made available for family planning, and maternal and reproductive health
services.
—$40 million shall be available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
conditions.
—No UNFPA funds available for programs in China.
—No UNFPA funds available unless UNFPA maintains amounts in a separate
account, does not commingle amounts with other sums, and UNFPA does
not fund abortions.

—Not less than $7 million shall be derived from funding appropriated under
If UNFPA is determined eligible
the IOP, with the rest coming from the Global Health and Child Survival
Secretary of State determined that UNFPA is not
for U.S. funds under the terms of
account.
eligible under Kemp-Kasten conditions.
2008
Kemp-Kasten, $25 million would
be drawn from the Child Survival
—Of the amount derived from the IOP account that are not made available
UNFPA will receive no funding from the United
and Health Programs account.
for UNFPA, the funds shall be transferred to the Global Health and Child
States.
Survival account, and shall be made available for family planning and maternal

and reproductive health activities.
—Report to Congress and Dollar-for-Dollar Withholding of Funds: No later
than four months after enactment, the Secretary of State shal report to
Appropriations Committees on 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.” If a report indicates that UNFPA
plans to spend funds for a country program in China in the year of the
report, the amount of funds that UNFPA plans to spend in China shal be
CRS-26

---

.

Fiscal
Administration Budget
Year
Request
Congressional Action/Legislative Conditions Enacted
Funding and Policy Outcome
deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA after March 1 for
obligation for the rest of the fiscal year. Moreover, nothing shall be
construed to limit the authority of the President to deny funds to any
organization due to the application of another law or provision.
—Requires the Administration to make Kemp-Kasten determinations within
six months of the enactment of the Act, and directs that the decision must
be accompanied by “a comprehensive analysis as well as the complete
evidence and criteria utilized to make the determination.”
—$50 million shall be made available to UNFPA, subject to Kemp-Kasten
provisions, of which not more than $30 million will be derived from the
International Organization and Programs account.
—Funds appropriated to UNFPA that are not made available because of the
operation of any provision of law, shall be made available to UNFPA
“notwithstanding any such provision of law.”
—Funds for UNFPA shal only be used to: (1) provide and distribute
equipment and medicine; (2) make contraceptives available; (3) prevent and
treat obstetric fistula; (4) reestablish maternal health services; (5) promote
If UNFPA is determined eligible
the abandonment of female genital cutting; and (6) promote access to basic
for U.S. funds under the terms of
services.
UNFPA will receive $50 million from the United
2009
Kemp-Kasten, $25 million would
—No U.S. funds shal be made available to UNFPA unless it maintains U.S.
States. Possible withholdings for a UNFPA country
be drawn from the Child Survival
funds in a separate account, does not commingle amounts with other sums,
program in China to be determined.
and Health Programs account.
and UNFPA does not fund abortions.
—No UNFPA funds shal be made available for a UNFPA country program in
China.
—No later than 60 days after the enactment of the Act, the Secretary is
required to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations indicating
the funds UNFPA is budgeting for a country program in China. If the
Secretary’s report indicates that funds will be spent a China program, then
the amount of such funds shal be deducted from the funds made available to
UNFPA after March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in
which the report is submitted.

CRS-27

---

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



Author Contact Information

Luisa Blanchfield

Analyst in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856




Congressional Research Service
28

---