19–006 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

‘‘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: 

• The 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. 

• UNFPA 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. 

• Funding is fungible, and new funding—even if ostensibly 

earmarked for a specific purpose—frees up organizational resources for unrelated (and objectionable) purposes. 

• Even 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- 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

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: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

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 ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 18, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR361.XXX HR361

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

merce.’’ 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

———— 1 2008 State Department UNFPA Report at 1. 

2See, 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). 4Therese 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’’). 6See, 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. 12Population 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. 17George 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. 24The 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-unaid-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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

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 OneChild 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) Rep. 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) Rep. 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) Reps. Payne and Keating offered an amendment, PayneKeating 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

4) Rep. 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) Reps. 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) Rep. 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) Rep. 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) Rep. 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

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) Reps. 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) Reps. 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(15) 

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 internationallyagreed 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

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 sexuallytransmitted 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 onechild 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 obVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:48 Jan 18, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR361.XXX HR361

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

stetric 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. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS