[House Report 112-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-361
======================================================================
TO PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
_______
January 17, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2059]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2059) to prohibit funding to the United Nations
Population Fund, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Background and Purpose........................................... 1
Hearings......................................................... 9
Committee Consideration and Votes................................ 9
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 11
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 11
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 12
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 13
New Advisory Committees.......................................... 13
Congressional Accountability Act................................. 13
Earmark Identification........................................... 13
Changes in Existing Law Made By the Bill, as Reported............ 13
Dissenting Views................................................. 15
Background and Purpose
H.R. 2059 would permanently prohibit United States taxpayer
funding of the United Nations Population Fund (hereinafter
``UNFPA''), primarily due to that UN agency's longstanding
support for, and cooperation with, China's inhumane and
coercive population control program. Given the economic
challenges facing our nation, it is difficult to justify U.S.
taxpayer funding for UNFPA, particularly given recent
allegations regarding UNFPA's large, unspent cash balances and
lack of operational transparency. The prohibition of U.S.
funding to UNFPA was selected in an online, public vote as the
winning ``YouCut'' legislative proposal on the House Majority
Leader's website in May of 2011, reflecting the broad public
sentiment that American taxpayer funds are better spent
elsewhere.
When assessing the UNFPA funding question, it is necessary
to keep in mind that:
LThe Chinese population control program
involves egregious, systematic human rights abuses,
which have been ongoing since the program was
implemented in 1978 and show no signs of abating.
LUNFPA has been an uncritical, official
partner with the Chinese population control program for
more than 30 years, providing direct, unaccountable
support to Chinese government agencies that continues
today.
LFunding is fungible, and new funding--even if
ostensibly earmarked for a specific purpose--frees up
organizational resources for unrelated (and
objectionable) purposes.
LEven if UNFPA undertakes laudatory activities
elsewhere, there is no reason why such activities could
not be funded through U.S. Government bilateral
assistance, or why UNFPA could not use its substantial
cash surplus to fund such activities if it no longer
received U.S. taxpayer funding.
Every foreign aid appropriations bill since Fiscal Year
1985 has specified that no funds may be ``made available to any
organization or program which, as determined by the President
of the United States, supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.'' This policy, known as the Kemp-Kasten
Amendment (hereinafter ``Kemp-Kasten''), was cited by
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to withhold
funding from UNFPA from 1986 to 1993 based on UNFPA's
activities in China. President Bill Clinton provided funding
for UNFPA throughout his presidency in spite of Kemp-Kasten,
with the exception of FY1999 when he signed the foreign aid
appropriations bill that zeroed out UNFPA funding for that
year.
President George W. Bush refused funding for UNFPA for
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2008, again based on the Kemp-Kasten
funding prohibition and UNFPA's activities in China. In 2008,
Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that ``UNFPA's support
of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities
allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its
program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible
to continue funding UNFPA at this time.''
The last determination transmitted to Congress by the U.S.
Department of State (``Analysis of Determination that Kemp-
Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA,'' transmitted with
cover letter by Deputy Secretary John D. Negroponte on June 26,
2008; hereinafter ``2008 State Department UNFPA Report''), is a
266-page investigative document that includes extensive
translations of Chinese family planning laws and regulations,
UNFPA official documents and correspondence, training
materials, and operating procedures.
In January 2009, President Barack Obama resumed funding for
UNFPA without any rationale to Congress demonstrating that
UNFPA had ceased all support of, and involvement in, China's
population control program. Contrary to assertions made during
the Committee's October 5, 2011 markup, there was no 2009 State
Department report on UNFPA activities in China. From FY2009
through FY2011, a total of $145 million was appropriated for
UNFPA.
The Committee believes that the United States should not
provide any funding to UNFPA so long as UNFPA continues its
support for China's inhumane population control program.
Furthermore, the majority of Committee Members believe that,
even without the China nexus, it does not make sense in this
economic climate for the U.S. to borrow money to pay UNFPA for
its activities in foreign countries, given its lack of
transparency.
China's Brutal Population Control Program
As the State Department has repeatedly noted, ``China's
birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in
law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary
sterilization.''\1\ Although physical coercion is formally
prohibited in Chinese law, it continues in actual practice. The
implementation of Chinese regime policy remains abhorrent both
to the sanctity of pre-born life, as well as to any genuine
notion of reproductive choice. Marginal changes of recent
years--such as allowing married couples broader choice in
contraceptive methods, and relaxing pre-approval requirements
for the first child of married couples--have not mitigated the
overall brutal aspects of the program, including the forcible
abortion of children who are not pre-authorized by the
government and children of single mothers.
Exposing this ongoing brutality and violence is the crux of
the work of the celebrated blind Chinese civil rights activist
Chen Guangcheng, who filed suit in 2005 on behalf of thousands
of victimized fellow villagers, including those whose full-term
babies were forcibly aborted by family planning officials.
Although the high profile of his efforts (and international
attention) prompted the State Family Planning Commission to
issue a formal condemnation of such abuses, the only
significant recriminations have been against Mr. Chen himself,
who was unjustly subjected to arrest, routine and savage
beatings, and imprisonment, and who, with his family, remains
under house arrest.
The China section of the State Department's most recent
Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released in April
2011, confirms that the ``harshly coercive'' aspects of the
Chinese program continue. In addition to the use of raw
``physical coercion to meet government goals,'' other
enforcement mechanisms include punitive fines (known as
``social compensation fees'') of up to 10 times a person's
annual income, job loss, the detention of family members (even
including infant children) until a mother submits to abortion
or sterilization, and the confiscation or destruction of
property.
Over the past 16 years, the Committee has received personal
testimony from numerous Chinese victims, as well as from a
former Chinese family planning official. Their first-hand
accounts have been instrumental in debunking official denials
of coercion (which have been parroted in the past by UNFPA
officials), and demonstrate the unacceptable human cost of
Chinese government abuses.\2\
Most recently, just two weeks before the markup of H.R.
2059, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human
Rights heard from three victims at a September 22, 2011 hearing
on ``China's One-Child Policy: The Government's Massive Crime
Against Women and Unborn Babies.'' Ms. Liu Ping described
demeaning and intrusive physical exams in the workplace,
systems of collective punishment that turn coworkers into
pregnancy police, and explained that ``pregnant women would be
dragged to undergo forced abortions'' routinely. She herself
was subjected to five forced abortions.
Ms. Ji Yeqing testified that where she lived in Shanghai,
unauthorized pregnancy is punished with job loss and fines of
more than three times a couple's combined annual income. She
later testified that, in late 2006, she was forcibly compelled
to submit to an abortion and the non-consensual insertion of an
intrauterine device (IUD) that caused her lingering physical
complications and pain:
``They surrounded us. . . . Two others stopped my
husband Liu Bin from rescuing me and beat him. I begged
them to spare us. . . . I couldn't free myself although
I struggled all the way. They dragged me down from the
fourth floor into a waiting car, drove into the Jiading
Women and Children's Clinic, and pulled me directly
into the operating room. They held me down in a bed and
sedated me. The abortion was performed while I was
unconscious. . . . After the abortion, I felt empty, as
if something was scooped out of me. My husband and I
had been so excited for our new baby. Now, suddenly,
all that hope and joy and excitement had disappeared,
all in an instant. I was very depressed and
despondent.''
Her testimony is a personal example of the disturbing
psychological trends identified by the third victim witness,
Ms. Chai Ling, who pointed out that Chinese women ``silently
suffer in a country with the highest female suicide rate in the
world, 500 women a day every day,'' a figure ratified by the
World Bank and the World Health Organization. The State
Department's 2011 Country Report on Human Rights Practices also
notes the connection that many observers have drawn between the
unprecedented prevalence of female suicide and the Chinese
government's draconian birth-limitation regime.\3\
Other effects of the inhumane Chinese program stretch far
beyond the abortions and sterilizations it compels: The
combination of coercive limitations with traditional social
preferences for male children has led to an unprecedented and
dangerous sex ratio imbalance within China. According to a 2010
study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 119 males are
born per 100 females and, within ten years, one in five young
men in China will be unable to find a bride. In some provinces
the birth ratio is as high as 140 boys for every 100 girls. As
discussed in a study published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, this situation, described elsewhere as
``gendercide,'' may yet lead to disastrous social
consequences--including ``increased mental health problems and
socially disruptive behavior among men,'' ``kidnapping and
trafficking of women for marriage and increased numbers of
commercial sex workers,'' and a ``rise in human
immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted
diseases''--that could imperil the stability of China, her
neighbors, and the world.\4\
UNFPA in China
Since 1979, UNFPA has provided more than $216 million in
assistance to China's population program, primarily to Chinese
government entities.\5\ China presently sits on UNFPA's
Executive Board. From the outset of their cooperation, both the
Chinese regime and UNFPA denied the existence of human rights
abuses in the enforcement of China's One-Child policy.\6\ On
numerous occasions, UNFPA's Executive Director defended the
Chinese program as ``strictly voluntary.''\7\ Only when the
accumulation of evidence and reporting made such denials
untenable did UNFPA say anything different, before reverting to
its habitual willingness to rely on misleading and
counterfactual assurances by the Chinese government about
voluntariness and coercion. UNFPA's late attempts to portray
itself as a champion of reproductive freedom in China ring
hollow, and appear motivated more by public relations damage
control than by a principled commitment to fundamental human
rights that should have long ago severed UNFPA's consistent
support to the Chinese government. The default relationship
between UNFPA and the Chinese regime, which continues today, is
one of direct support and mutual congratulation.
Glowingly reviewing three decades of ``UNFPA's cooperation
with the Chinese Government'' in a report published in early
2011, UNFPA's China Representative, Dr. Bernard Coquelin,
expressed ``heartfelt appreciation'' for ``the support and
leadership from the Chinese Government [that] has enabled
[UNFPA] to provide assistance appropriate to the Chinese
context and in line with the Government's own development
proprieties.''\8\ At a Chinese Government-sponsored
international symposium on population issues in September 2010,
he also lauded China's ``privileged position'' as ``an example
for other nations to follow.''\9\
Similarly, in December 2010, China's Vice Minister for the
National Population and Family Planning Commission expressed
``thanks to UNFPA for its constant support to China's
population and family planning undertakings during the past
thirty years and more.''\10\ The Vice Minister also has spoken
highly of ``the effective work of [the] UNFPA China Office'' in
``responding to foreign mass media'' regarding China's family
planning program.\11\
The accolades and international legitimacy with which UNFPA
has showered the Chinese population program have remained
consistent throughout their 32-year collaboration. In 1983,
UNFPA bestowed the first UN Population Award on Qian Xinzhong,
the Minister-in-charge of the Chinese State Family Planning
Commission. In 2002, when China's State Family Planning
Commission awarded its own Population Award to Dr. Nafis Sadik,
UNFPA's Executive Director from 1987 to 2000, Dr. Sadik stated
that:
I have had the honor of being associated with China's
reproductive health and family planning program for
more than two decades. I was instrumental in initiating
UNFPA's cooperation with China in 1979. . . . Looking
back, I feel a great sense of pride for the Chinese
Government . . . I also feel proud that UNFPA made the
wise decision to resist external pressures and
continued its fruitful cooperation with China.\12\
Although UNFPA's resistance to detailed budget disclosures
makes it impossible to determine exact figures, it has provided
much--if not most--of its hundreds of millions of dollars in
China funding directly to Chinese Government-affiliated
entities.\13\ As the State Department detailed in its 2008
report to Congress, ``by providing financial and technical
resources . . . to the National Population and Family Planning
Commission and related [Chinese government] entities, UNFPA
provides support for and participates in the management of the
Chinese government's program of coercive abortion and
involuntary sterilization.''\14\ UNFPA's touted efforts to
expand the range of ``choice'' in birth control methods
available in China does not extend to the more salient,
fundamental choice of whether and when to have children.
``Central elements'' of UNFPA activities:
Involve financial and technical support to the NPFPC
and related entities that are responsible for
implementing and enforcing China's program of coercive
abortion and sterilization. Moreover, all UNFPA
programming related to contraception and reproductive
health incorporates, and defers to, Chinese law and
regulation. The national law and the provincial
regulations are the framework for China's coercive
birth policies.\15\
Furthermore, while UNFPA maintains a modest Country Office
in Beijing, ``UNFPA has no field presence in China'' and as a
result it cannot ensure ``consistent oversight of activities
supported with UNFPA funds''.\16\ These concerns over lack of
transparency are heightened by recent investigative reports
alleging that UNFPA disburses approximately $200 million per
year to foreign governments and NGOs in ways that do not let
UNFPA auditors examine grantee accounts, such that donors
``have little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny'' of
that money.\17\
UNFPA's direct, unaccountable financial support to the
Chinese regime continues in its new, Seventh Country Program
for China, through which ``UNFPA supports the Chinese
Government in fulfilling its commitments . . . in the areas of
population and development.''\18\ Although UNFPA has refused
U.S. government requests for detailed budget information on its
activities in China, it appears from what little documentation
is publicly available that UNFPA's primary grantees and
implementers will continue to be Chinese government ministries,
agencies, and related officials.\19\ ``Government agencies''
are the primary implementers that UNFPA lists for its 2011-2015
China Country Program.\20\ Among others, UNFPA's listed
Partners include the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Ministry of
Health, the Ministry of Commerce, the National Population and
Family Planning Commission, the National Bureau of Statistics,
and the National Development and Reform Commission. Even
activities funded through nongovernmental organizations are to
be implemented ``under the aegis of the Ministry of
Commerce.''\21\ UNFPA's Executive Board (including the United
States) approved the Seventh Country Program ``on a no-
objection basis, without discussion or presentation'' at a
session where Ambassador Susan Rice expressed the Obama
Administration's strong support for UNFPA ``both as an
Executive Board Member and major donor.''\22\
Funding, Fungibility, and Transparency
Most appeals for U.S. funding to UNFPA, such as those made
during Committee markup, involve assurances that ``not a single
penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by UNFPA.''
Similarly, when the Obama Administration made the decision
to provide U.S. funding to UNFPA, it did so pursuant to
language prohibiting the use of such funds for (and requiring a
``withholding'' in the amount of) UNFPA's expenditures in
China. But even subject to those ``restrictions,'' the net
result of that decision was that U.S. taxpayer funding of UNFPA
went from zero in 2008 to more than $46 million in 2009, while
UNFPA continued its direct fiscal support to the Chinese
regime.\23\
Similarly, all but one of the amendments offered at markup
by Members of the minority were minor variations on the same
theme: Earmarking U.S. funding to UNFPA for a notionally
appealing purpose (e.g., treating obstetric fistula, promoting
safe childbirth, combating forced marriage, etc.).\24\ But the
net effect would be to allow substantial U.S. funding to flow
to UNFPA even while UNFPA continues its longstanding support to
the Chinese population control program.
These approaches conveniently ignore the basic fact that
money is fungible. Providing substantial new resources to an
entity--even if ostensibly earmarked for a specific purpose--
frees up organizational resources for unrelated (and
objectionable) purposes. This is true both of U.S. funding to
UNFPA, and of UNFPA funding to China (wholly apart from the
fact that UNFPA's monitoring of its assistance to the Chinese
regime is inadequate to ensure that such funding is used for
its designated purposes).
Furthermore, the amendments rejected by the Committee also
wrongly assumed that UNFPA is the best or only means of
promoting the goals identified in each amendment. That
assumption is belied by the extensive bilateral and
multilateral funding that Congress provides for such activities
(such as obstetric fistula repair, HIV/AIDS prevention, and
family planning) outside of UNFPA channels. It should be noted
that the foreign aid appropriation bills for FY 2004--2008
specified that funding not made available for UNFPA was to be
transferred to bilateral programming for family planning and
maternal health activities.
It also does not appear that a cutoff of U.S. funding would
impair UNFPA's ability to carry out such activities for the
foreseeable future, given recent reports of UNFPA maintaining a
huge, unspent cash surplus, estimated to be $484.3 million in
2010 (an amount approximately 10 times greater than U.S.
funding to UNFPA that year).\25\
For more than 30 years, UNFPA has been collaborating with,
defending, and funding China's brutal and inhumane population
control policy. Until it decisively ends that cooperation, it
must not receive any funding or legitimacy from U.S. taxpayers.
--------
\1\2008 State Department UNFPA Report at 1.
\2\See, e.g.: Testimony of Ma Dongfang (December 14, 2004 full
Committee hearing on ``China: Human Rights Violations and Coercion in
One-Child Policy Enforcement''); testimony of Gao Xiao Duan, former
Administrator, Planned Birth Control Office, and Zhou Shiu Yon, victim
(June 10, 1998 Subcommittee on International Operation and Human Rights
(IOHR) hearing on ``Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China: The
View from the Inside''); and testimony of Weng Kang Di, Chen Yun Fei,
Hu Shuye, and Li Bao Yu (July 19, 1995 IOHR hearing on ``Coercive
Population Control in China'').
\3\U.S. Department of State, 2010 Country Report on Human Rights
Practices (China) (2011).
\4\Therese Hesketh, Li Lu, and Zhu Wei Xing, ``The Effect of
China's One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years.'' New England Journal
of Medicine 353.11 (2005), 1171-1176. See also ``Gendercide: The
Worldwide War on Baby Girls,'' The Economist (US), March 4, 2010.
\5\United Nations Population Fund, China and UNFPA: 30 Years of
Cooperation on Population and Development (Beijing: UNFPA, 2011), 59.
Accessed at http://www.un.org.cn/cms/p/resources/30/1673/content.html
(hereinafter ``China and UNFPA: 30 Years of Cooperation'').
\6\See, e.g., the history and extensive quotations contained in the
prepared testimony of John S. Aird, former senior research specialist
on China at the U.S. Bureau of the Census, at the May 17, 1995
International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee hearing on
``Coercive Population Control in China,'' which is contained in the
Appendix to the Government Printing Office print of the hearing (ISBN
0-16-052083-5).
\7\E.g., July 8, 1993 letter of UNFPA Executive Director Nafis
Sadik to USAID Administrator J. Brian Atwood (``the Government will
continue to request cooperation from its people to lower their
fertility, but acceptance of the family planning goals is strictly
voluntary.''); November 21, 1989 statement of Nafis Sadik on CBS
Nightwatch (``The implementation of the policy and the acceptance of
the policy is purely voluntary.'').
\8\China and UNFPA: 30 Years of Cooperation at 3 (Preface by Dr.
Bernard Coquelin, UNFPA China Representative).
\9\Remarks of Dr. Bernard Coquelin, UNFPA Representative in China,
at the International Symposium on Population and Development, Ningxia
Province, China (September 27, 2010). Accessed at http://
www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=100930095825647409.
\10\National Population and Family Planning Commisssion account of
remarks by Vice Minister Zhao Baige at December 12, 2010 retrospective
on UNFPA's 6th China Country Program. Accessed at http://
www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=110111100425362139.
\11\National Population and Family Planning Commission account of
May 18, 2009 meeting between Vice Minister Zhao Baige and UNFPA
Regional Director Ms. Nobuko Horibe. Accessed at http://
www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/international/
detail.aspx?articleid=090521163808453018.
\12\Population Prize Award Ceremony Speech by Dr. Nafis Sadik
(January 14, 2002). Accessed at http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/
detail.aspx?articleid=090610110219106529.
\13\China and UNFPA: 30 Years of Cooperation at 45-50 (list of
Chinese Government implementing partners for UNFPA Country Programs 1-
6) and 59-60 (list of core financial resources for Country Programs 1-
6).
\14\2008 State Department UNFPA Report at 6-7.
\15\Id at 4.
\16\Id.
\17\George Russell, ``U.N. Development Agencies Accumulate
Billions--and Keep Spending a Secret.'' Foxnews.com (December 12,
2011). Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/12/un-
development-agencies-accumulate-billions-and-keep-spending-secret/).
The report is derived (and includes quotations) from a confidential
draft report prepared in 2011 by IDC Consulting for the Government of
Norway, one of UNFPA's top three donors.
\18\UNFPA China Office, UNFPA-Government of China Seventh Country
Programme, 2011-2015 (January 2011), 1. Accessed at http://
www.un.org.cn/cms/p/resources/30/1674/content.html.
\19\2008 State Department UNFPA Report at 6 (``The Department of
State also repeatedly requested UNFPA to provide us with detailed
budget information on its 6th Country Program in China. UNFPA refused
these requests.'').
\20\Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and
of the United Nations Population Fund, United Nations Population Fund
Draft Country Programme Document for China (DP/FPA/2010/17) (Geneva:
United Nations, 2010), 5-7.
\21\Id at 5.
\22\Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and
of the United Nations Population Fund, Report of the Second Regular
Session 2010 (30 August to 2 September 2010, New York) (DP/2011/1), 18.
Remarks by Amb. Susan E. Rice at the UNFPA Executive Board Meeting
(August 30, 2010)
\23\United Nations Population Fund, Report on Contributions by
Member States and Others to UNFPA (DP/FPA/2010/18) (Geneva: United
Nations, 2010), 16.
\24\The one exception, an unsuccessful amendment offered by
Representatives Keating and Cicciline (prohibiting U.S. funding to
UNFPA that the Secretary of State determines would support coercive
abortion or China's One-Child policy) would have voided the effect of
the bill. Under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, such a negative
determination is already implicit in the Administration's decision to
resume U.S. funding to UNFPA. For the reasons detailed in this report,
the Committee strongly disagrees with the Administration's views on
that point.
\25\Russell, George. ``Report: U.N. Aid Agencies Heaped Up Huge
Amounts of Cash.'' Foxnews.com (July 20, 2011). Accessed at http://
www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/20/report-un-aid-agencies-stockpile-huge-
amounts-cash/. The report is derived (and includes quotations) from a
confidential draft report prepared in 2011 by IDC Consulting for the
Government of Norway, one of UNFPA's top three donors.
Hearings
In addition to the Committee hearings held on these topics
in prior Congresses (as described in the ``Background and
Purpose'' section above) the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights held a September 22, 2011 hearing on
``China's One-Child Policy: The Government's Massive Crime
Against Women and Unborn Babies.'' Witnesses included: Ms. Chai
Ling (Founder, All Girls Allowed); Ms. Reggie Littlejohn
(Founder and President, Women's Rights Without Frontiers);
Valerie Hudson, Ph.D (Professor, Department of Political
Science, Brigham Young University); Ms. Ji Yeqing (victim of
forced abortion); and Ms. Liu Ping (victim of forced abortion).
Committee Consideration and Votes
On October 5, 2011, the Foreign Affairs Committee marked up
the bill, H.R. 2059, pursuant to notice, in open session.
1) LRep. Connolly offered an amendment, Connolly 648
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFP to prevent and treat
obstetric fistula); not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 12 ayes-21 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman,
Engel, Carnahan, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler,
Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Mack, Fortenberry, McCaul, Bilirakis,
Schmidt, Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino,
Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
2) LRep. Bass (CA) offered an amendment, Bass (CA) 654
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to reestablish
reproductive and maternal health services in natural
disaster-affected areas); not agreed to by a roll call
vote of 13 ayes-21 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman,
Engel, Carnahan, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler,
Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ),
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Wilson (SC), Mack, Fortenberry, Poe,
Bilirakis, Schmidt, Rivera, Kelly, Griffin,
Marino, Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers.
3) LReps. Payne and Keating offered an amendment,
Payne-Keating 647 (permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to
promote the access of women, unaccompanied minors, and
other vulnerable people to vital services in emergency
and conflict situations); not agreed to by a roll call
vote of 13 ayes-23 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman,
Engel, Carnahan, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler,
Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ),
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Wilson (SC), Mack, Fortenberry, Poe,
Bilirakis, Schmidt, Johnson (OH), Rivera,
Kelly, Griffin, Marino, Duncan, Buerkle,
Ellmers, Turner.
4) LRep. Payne offered an amendment, Payne 658
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to carry out
activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo); not
agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 ayes-23 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman,
Engel, Carnahan, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler,
Higgins, Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating,
Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Wilson (SC), Mack, Fortenberry, Poe, Bilirakis,
Schmidt, Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin,
Marino, Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
5) LReps. Cicilline and Schwartz offered an amendment,
Cicilline-Schwartz 649 (permitting U.S. funding to
UNFPA to provide materials to ensure safe childbirth
and emergency obstetric care); not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 13 ayes-22 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman,
Engel, Carnahan, Connolly, Deutch, Higgins,
Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Wilson (SC), Mack, Fortenberry, Bilirakis,
Schmidt, Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin,
Marino, Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
6) LRep. Cicilline offered an amendment, Cicilline 650
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to promote
abandonment of female genital mutilation and other
harmful traditional practices); not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 13 ayes-21 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel,
Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch, Higgins,
Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Mack, Fortenberry, Bilirakis, Schmidt, Johnson
(OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino, Duncan,
Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
7) LRep. Keating offered an amendment, Keating 652
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to promote
abandonment of early and forced marriage); not agreed
to by a roll call vote of 15 ayes-20 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel,
Meeks, Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch,
Chandler, Higgins, Murphy (CT), Bass (CA),
Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Mack,
Fortenberry, Bilirakis, Schmidt, Johnson (OH),
Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino, Duncan,
Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
8) LRep. Murphy (CT) offered an amendment, Murphy 651
(permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to carry out family
planning services to space children, prevent unintended
pregnancy, reduce abortion, and sexually-transmitted
infections); not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes-22 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel,
Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler,
Higgins, Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating,
Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Mack, Fortenberry, Bilirakis, Schmidt,
Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino,
Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
9) LReps. Keating and Cicilline offered an amendment,
Keating-Cicilline 1 (prohibiting U.S. funding to UNFPA
that the Secretary of State determines would support
coercive abortion or China's One-Child policy); not
agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 ayes-22 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel,
Meeks, Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch,
Chandler, Higgins, Schwartz, Murphy (CT), Bass
(CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Mack, Fortenberry, Bilirakis, Schmidt,
Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino,
Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
10) LReps. Wilson (FL) and Meeks offered an amendment,
Wilson-Meeks 656 (permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to
carry out activities in Haiti); not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 16 ayes-22 noes.
Voting YES: Berman, Ackerman, Sherman, Engel,
Meeks, Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch,
Chandler, Higgins, Schwartz, Murphy (CT), Bass
(CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Voting NO: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton,
Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot,
Pence, Mack, Fortenberry, Bilirakis, Schmidt,
Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly, Griffin, Marino,
Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
H.R. 2059 was agreed to by a roll call vote of 23 ayes-17
noes, and was ordered favorably reported to the House by voice
vote.
Voting YES: Ros-Lehtinen, Smith (NJ), Burton, Gallegly,
Rohrabacher, Manzullo, Royce, Chabot, Pence, Mack, Fortenberry,
McCaul, Bilirakis, Schmidt, Johnson (OH), Rivera, Kelly,
Griffin, Marino, Duncan, Buerkle, Ellmers, Turner.
Voting NO: Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Sherman, Engel, Meeks,
Carnahan, Sires, Connolly, Deutch, Chandler, Higgins, Schwartz,
Murphy (CT), Bass (CA), Keating, Cicilline.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House Rule XIII, the
Committee reports that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of House Rule X, are incorporated in the ``Background and
Purpose'' portion of this report, above.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII, the
Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget
authority, entitlement authority, and tax expenditures or
revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 14, 2011.
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2059, a bill to
prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sunita
D'Monte, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable Howard L. Berman
Ranking Member
H.R. 2059--A bill to prohibit funding to the United Nations Population
Fund
As ordered reported by the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs on October 5, 2011
H.R. 2059 would prohibit the Secretary of State from making
contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no effect
on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 2059 would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
In 2011, $40 million was appropriated for voluntary
contributions to the UNFPA (assessed dues are not used to fund
that entity). However, the Department of State will withhold $3
million of that amount because of UNFPA's ongoing activities in
China and will transfer those funds to the U.S. Agency for
International Development for child survival programs. CBO
expects that the $37 million allocated to the UNFPA will be
obligated and expended before this bill would be enacted. The
President has requested $47.5 million in 2012 for contributions
to the UNFPA. There currently are no appropriations authorized
or provided for 2012 or future years for contributions to the
UNFPA; therefore, CBO would not attribute savings to H.R. 2059.
H.R. 2059 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sunita D'Monte.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
General Performance Goals and Objectives
As explained more specifically in the ``Background and
Purpose'' section of this report, the principal goal of H.R.
2059 is to preclude U.S. funding to the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA), which has been providing direct and
non-transparent assistance to the Chinese regime's brutal and
inhumane population control program for more than three
decades.
New Advisory Committees
H.R. 2059 does not establish or authorize any new advisory
committees.
Congressional Accountability Act
H.R. 2059 does not apply to the Legislative Branch.
Earmark Identification
H.R. 2059 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of House Rule XXI.
Changes in Existing Law Made By the Bill, as Reported
H.R. 2059 does not propose to repeal or amend a statute or
part thereof, as described in clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
Dissenting Views
Introduction
As United States bilateral assistance programs come under
greater budgetary pressure, we rely increasingly on
multilateral agencies to promote our foreign policy objectives
around the world. Specialized organizations such as the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are able to leverage funds from
a wide range of donors, operate in a variety of settings across
the globe, maintain a skilled professional staff, and
contribute to meeting internationally-agreed development goals.
Yet funding for the UNFPA is once again in the crosshairs of
House Republicans, who are turning women and children in the
developing world into pawns in a debate that often seems
divorced from reality. Ironically, by reducing access to
voluntary family planning programs around the world, this
legislation would undermine maternal and child health, increase
unintended pregnancies, and likely result in a greater number
of abortions.
Lack of Access to Family Planning Increases Child and Maternal
Mortality
This year the global population surpassed 7 billion, up
from 6 billion in 1999. And although many people clearly would
like to have smaller families, an estimated 215 million women
worldwide lack access to safe and effective contraception. Lack
of access to reproductive health care, particularly by poor
women, contributes to death and suffering, limits women's
ability to make decisions that affect their lives, and
undermines the efforts of families to lift themselves out of
poverty.
Achieving the Millennium Development Goals of eradicating
extreme poverty and hunger, promoting gender equality, reducing
child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/
AIDS all require a significant investment in family planning
and reproductive health care. Closely spaced and ill-timed
pregnancies and births contribute to high maternal and infant
mortality rates, and when mothers die as a result of giving
birth, their surviving infants have a greater risk of mortality
and poor health status. Lack of availability of emergency
obstetric care, along with delays in seeking medical attention,
in reaching a medical facility, and in receiving medical care
once arriving at a facility, contribute to the development of
obstetric fistula, increasing the risk of death for both mother
and child. And practices such as child marriage and female
genital mutilation can permanently harm the health of young
people and deprive them of their dignity and human rights.
UNFPA Advances Longstanding U.S. Foreign Policy Goals
The UNFPA plays a key role in increasing access to
voluntary family planning, as well as in advancing longstanding
U.S. foreign policy goals of reducing maternal and child
mortality, halting the spread of infectious disease such as
HIV/AIDS, and promoting gender equality and women's
empowerment. The Fund works in partnership with governments,
donors and civil society organizations to provide antenatal,
safe delivery and post-natal care; to prevent and treat
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV; to prevent and
respond to violence against women; to eliminate harmful
traditional practices; and to prevent the demand for abortion
by providing voluntary family planning services. Its mission is
to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe,
every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and
woman is treated with dignity and respect. If the United States
abandons its moral commitment to demonstrate leadership by
supporting the UNFPA, we will only complicate and weaken our
own efforts to reduce global poverty and alleviate human
suffering.
Women and Children Will Suffer as a Result of This Legislation
By embracing this reckless and irresponsible legislation,
the Republican majority sends a clear message that it is
willing to abandon efforts to provide life-saving services to
women, children and families around the world in favor of
advancing its extreme social agenda. This attack on the many
millions of women and children who benefit from services
provided by UNFPA is just the latest salvo in Republican
efforts to limit access to birth control and family planning
services for women everywhere.
Attacks on the UNFPA are Ideological and Lack Factual Basis
During the markup of H.R. 2059, some Republicans attempted
to justify their support for this legislation by citing
erroneous information that underlies an ideologically-driven
campaign to discredit the UNFPA. UNFPA has clearly stated that
it does not promote abortion as a method of family planning and
is guided by the Cairo Program of Action, which directs that
``in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family
planning.'' In fact, UNFPA's family planning services help
prevent abortion--many of which are performed in non-sterile
conditions by poorly trained personnel, and often result in
maternal death or disability.'' However, some Republican
members inaccurately claimed that the organization promotes
abortion and is complicit in China's one-child policy. During
the previous Administration, the State Department conducted an
investigation of the organization and found ``no evidence that
UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management
of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization
in the People's Republic of China.'' Yet during debate over
H.R. 2059 in the Committee, opponents of the UNFPA and
international family planning continued to reiterate baseless
allegations, while presenting no evidence to back them up.
Moreover, opponents of UNFPA do not seem aware that
longstanding U.S. law requires that none of the U.S.
contribution to UNFPA may be used in its China program. In
addition, in response to the ``funds are fungible'' argument,
U.S. law also mandates that the U.S. contribution be reduced--
dollar for dollar--according to the amount UNFPA expends in
China each year. Only UNFPA is singled out for these special
rules guarding how the U.S. funds are used, and only UNFPA is
deemed guilty by association with China--a standard that is not
applied to any other UN agency--or, indeed, to any other
assistance program.
In the course of the debate, some Republicans argued that
it was the UNFPA specifically, rather than international family
planning efforts in general, to which they were opposed.
However, these arguments ring hollow in light of the FY 2011
omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1, supported by all but three
House Republicans and no Democrats, which would have
disproportionately slashed international family planning
funding--bilateral as well as multilateral--by nearly a third
from FY 2010 levels. Attacks on the UNFPA are part and parcel
of a comprehensive Republican assault against all family
planning programs both in the United States and abroad.
Republicans Failed to Back Words with Votes
During the markup of H.R. 2059, while no Republican members
voiced support for family planning programs, some expressed
support for the prevention and treatment of obstetric fistula,
the prevention of child marriage, and the provision of
emergency reproductive and maternal health services in natural
disaster-affected areas, all of which are important activities
carried out by the UNFPA. Yet a total of 10 Democratic
amendments--several of them narrowlytailored to address these
specific activities -were defeated on party-line votes. Rep.
Connolly offered an amendment permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA
to prevent and treat obstetric fistula. Rep. Bass offered an
amendment permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to reestablish
reproductive and maternal health services in natural disaster-
affected areas. Reps. Payne and Keating offered an amendment
permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to promote the access of
women, unaccompanied minors, and other vulnerable people to
vital services in emergency and conflict situations. Rep. Payne
offered an amendment permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to carry
out activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Reps.
Cicilline and Schwartz offered an amendment permitting U.S.
funding to UNFPA to provide materials to ensure safe childbirth
and emergency obstetric care. Rep. Cicilline offered an
amendment permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to promote
abandonment of female genital mutilation and other harmful
traditional practices. Rep. Keating offered an amendment
permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to promote abandonment of
early and forced marriage. Rep. Murphy (CT) offered an
amendment permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to carry out family
planning services to space children, prevent unintended
pregnancy, reduce abortion, and sexually-transmitted
infections. Reps. Keating and Cicilline offered an amendment
prohibiting U.S. funding to UNFPA that the Secretary of State
determines would support coercive abortion or China's one-child
policy. And Reps. Wilson (FL) and Meeks offered an amendment
permitting U.S. funding to UNFPA to carry out activities in
Haiti. Not a single Republican voted for any one of these
amendments.
We are troubled that Republicans voiced little concern
about the likely impact of cutting off U.S. support for UNFPA's
work. There were no Republican proposals for addressing the
instances of obstetric fistula and child marriage that would be
neglected as a consequence of this legislation, nor were there
Republican calls to improve access to voluntary family planning
for couples in Haiti or the DRC or anywhere in the developing
world. Even staunch abortion opponents should be concerned that
this legislation will result in the United States being forced
to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable women and
children especially in countries where UNFPA has programs that
the U.S. government does not.
The Republican approach to international family planning
and reproductive health detracts from U.S. moral and strategic
leadership, ignores the reality that truly empowering women
rests on their having the information and ability to determine
freely and responsibly for themselves whether and when to have
a child and reflects a disturbing lack of compassion for those
whose lives would be put in danger if they were to prevail in
gutting the U.S. overseas program and cutting off U.S.
partnerships with key agencies such as UNFPA that women in 150
developing countries have come to rely upon. For these reasons,
we have absolutely no hesitation in urging our colleagues to
reject this reckless and misguided legislation.
Howard L. Berman.
Gary L. Ackerman.
Donald M. Payne.
Brad Sherman.
Eliot L. Engel.
Gregory W. Meeks.
Russ Carnahan.
Albio Sires.
Gerald E. Connolly.
Theodore E. Deutch.
Brian Higgins.
Allyson Schwartz.
Christopher S. Murphy.
Frederica Wilson.
Karen Bass.
William Keating.
David Cicilline.