[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1874-S1875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ADMINISTRATION'S RECORD ALLOWS CHINA TO GET BY WITH WHOLESALE MURDER

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee recently 
received an alarming letter--which the State Department was required to 
send pursuant to Title IV of public law 105-118--explaining that the 
United Nations Population Fund (known as UNFPA) is renewing its highly 
controversial population control program in communist China.
  Surely, the most inhumane human rights abuses in China occur in the 
name of reducing its birth rate. Under Red China's population control 
regime, women who already have one child are forced to abort their 
babies, and forced to undergo sterilization procedures. Nazi Germany 
could not have designed a system more brutally efficient than China's--
which systematically kills all but firstborn babies. And from the 
beginning, UNFPA has worked hand-in-glove with communist Chinese 
authorities.
  In fact, Presidents Reagan and Bush suspended funding for UNFPA 
precisely because of its activities in China, and it was not until 
President Clinton was sworn in (promising to keep abortions ``safe, 
legal and rare'') that UNFPA begin receiving U.S. taxpayer funds again. 
President Clinton's support for UNFPA has never wavered, even though 
China never backed off its forced abortion policy.
  So now you know, Mr. President, why the Administration occasionally 
gives lip service to the critics of China's brutal population control 
program, and why it occasionally assures Congress that it really does 
not want UNFPA in China. In fact, the Administration went so far as to 
put this in writing.
  I have at hand a letter from AID's Administrator, Brian Atwood, dated 
September 10, 1993, promising that, ``. . . if there are not 
significant improvements in China's population program, the United 
States will not support continued UNFPA assistance to China beyond 1995 
when the current program ends.'' The same promise was made to other 
members of Congress.
  Mr. President, this promise is significant because decisions about 
UNFPA's programs are made by consensus by its Executive Board. In other 
words, as a leading contributor to UNFPA, and a member of its Executive 
Board, the United States had the opportunity and the wherewithal to 
veto a renewal of China's program. But the Clinton Administration 
refused to do so, despite promises made to Congress, and despite their 
own admission that China's population program has not made 
``significant improvements''.
  Consider the U.S. statement at UNFPA's Board meeting: ``We believe 
that this program may have the potential to demonstrate clearly the 
efficacy and sustainability of volunteer, non-coercive family 
planning.'' Mr. President, this is cheerleading. It is an endorsement 
rather than opposition, as promised.
  It is curious, Mr. President, that UNFPA's previous 15 year program 
in China failed to ``demonstrate clearly the efficacy and 
sustainability of volunteer, non-coercive family planning''. Clearly, 
communist China sees nothing wrong with its policy of forced abortion. 
UNFPA's Executive Director actually praised communist China for 
``achievements'' in controlling its population growth. For the State 
Department to pretend that UNFPA now cares whether China's program is 
coercive or not is dishonest.
  Mr. President, apparently the Administration cannot or will not keep 
its word when it comes to this issue. Therefore, I intend to make every 
effort to see that Congress cuts off funding for UNFPA once and for 
all. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the following letters be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks: (1) a February 
13, 1997, letter to me from Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of 
State for Legislative Affairs; (2) a September 10, 1993, letter to me 
from AID Administrator Brian Atwood; and (3) a May 18, 1994, letter to 
Rep. Smith from AID Administrator Brian Atwood.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 1998.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to Title IV (Multilateral 
     Economic Assistance) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998, 
     (H.R. 2159), as enacted by P.L. 105-118, we are writing to 
     inform you that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) 
     will begin a new program in the People's Republic of China 
     this year. UNFPA has budgeted $5 million for the China 
     program in 1998, out of a total four-year program budget of 
     $20 million. UNFPA's previous program in China ended in 1995. 
     UNFPA reported to the Department of State, as we in turn 
     reported to you, that no funds were spent in China in 1996 or 
     1997.
       As you know, the U.S. has long opposed plans for a new 
     China program. While we continue to have concerns regarding 
     renewed UNFPA assistance to China, support for a new program 
     has been strong among every other member country represented 
     on the UNFPA Executive Board. Consequently, on January 19, 
     1998, the Executive Board approved a new program for China. 
     This new four-year program is the result of more than two 
     years of extensive negotiations between UNFPA and Chinese 
     government officials. It involves activities in 32 counties 
     designed to improve the delivery of voluntary family planning 
     and related health services. The program is an attempt to 
     demonstrate that couples, given the family planning and 
     related health services they need, will freely and 
     responsibly plan their families and help the Chinese fulfill 
     their stated intention of eliminating incentives and 
     disincentives from their nation's family planning program. A 
     key element of this new program is a commitment by the 
     Chinese to suspend or remove birth quotas and targets in 
     project counties. As such, the program reflects the 
     principles of voluntarism and non-coercion which we and the 
     international community have been asking China to adopt and 
     begins to address many of the concerns we have about China's 
     family planning policy. We will be monitoring this new 
     program closely.
       As Title IV requires, the $5 million that UNFPA plans to 
     spend in China in 1998 will be deducted from the $25 million 
     appropriated in the law for the U.S. contribution to UNFPA.
       If you would like further information on the UNFPA program 
     in China, we would be pleased to arrange a briefing.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
     Legislative Affairs.
                                                                    ____

         The Administrator, Agency for International Development,
                               Washington, DC, September 10, 1993.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: Thank you for your letter of August 16, 
     1993, requesting additional information about the 
     Administration's decision to provide assistance to the United 
     Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Human Reproduction 
     Program of the World Health Organization (WHO/HRP).


                       unfpa policy determination

       Rapid population growth presents enormous problems for 
     developing and developed countries in the immediate future. 
     This Administration is acting to establish a role for the 
     United States as a world leader to meet this challenge. 
     President Clinton invited the Executive Director of UNFPA to 
     a White House ceremony on January 22, 1993, when he ordered 
     A.I.D. to stop implementing the Mexico City Policy; he has 
     directed a reorganization of the State Department to reflect 
     the greater priority placed on population as a global issue; 
     and in May, State Department Counselor Wirth reconfirmed the 
     Clinton Administration's intention to resume funding

[[Page S1875]]

     for UNFPA during his remarks to the Second Preparatory 
     Committee for the International Conference on Population and 
     Development.
       The United States strongly opposes coercion in family 
     planning programs, and State Department representatives to 
     the UNFPA Governing Council meeting in June expressed our 
     dismay about reported continued abuses in China. In deciding 
     to resume assistance for UNFPA, this Administration did not 
     determine that China's population control program is not 
     coercive, but rather that UNFPA does not support or 
     participate in the management of a program of coercive 
     abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       This Administration does not believe it should attribute to 
     UNFPA human rights violations in a government's population 
     program unless there is clear evidence that UNFPA knowingly 
     and intentionally provides direct funding or other support 
     for those abuses. The Kemp-Kasten amendment is an ambiguous 
     provision, and Congress did not indicate an intention to 
     apply this restriction automatically and more broadly to an 
     organization which provides assistance to a country that has 
     a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. 
     We also do not consider it appropriate to withhold funding 
     when UNFPA is not directly involved with these abuses because 
     the nation-members of the Governing Council, rather than 
     UNFPA, decide whether UNFPA will assist a country that 
     requests it.
       During the June Governing Council meeting, the Executive 
     Director of UNFPA likewise condemned coercion in family 
     planning programs. She explained that UNFPA has had a 
     constant dialogue with Chinese officials about reproductive 
     freedom and monitors its projects carefully to ensure 
     adherence to universally accepted standards of human rights. 
     Several other country members of the Governing Council 
     repeated their longstanding belief that UNFPA's presence in 
     China is a moderating influence and a catalyst for change 
     there. More recently, UNFPA reported that the Government of 
     China has agreed to keep UNFPA informed about the action it 
     takes to correct abuses identified in the China population 
     program.
       UNFPA also has ceased providing computer equipment for 
     China. UNFPA's current program focuses primarily on improving 
     the quality and safety of contraceptives and providing 
     assistance for safe motherhood, infant care, nutrition, 
     breastfeeding and family planning. It supports efforts to 
     raise the status of women and enhance reproductive choice 
     through improved literacy, skills training and income 
     generation.
       Nevertheless, we remain concerned about coercion in China, 
     and UNFPA has agreed to the following conditions: United 
     States funds must be kept in a separate, segregated account; 
     No United States funds may be used in China; and UNFPA will 
     report about where United States funds are used and provide 
     adequate documentation to describe and support the stated 
     expenditures.
       The United States will ensure that UNFPA reviews, during 
     each annual Governing Council meeting, progress made toward 
     improving reproductive freedom in China. In addition, if 
     there are not significant improvements in China's population 
     program, the United States will not support continued UNFPA 
     assistance to China beyond 1995 when the current program 
     ends.


                         who/hrp legal analysis

       This letter describes the reasons for A.I.D.'s decision 
     that Sections 104(f) (1) and (3) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, as amended (the FAA), do not bar support for 
     WHO/HRP. There is no separate legal memorandum on this 
     subject.
       These sections state: ``(f) Prohibition on Use of Funds for 
     Abortions and Involuntary Sterilizations.--(1) None of the 
     funds made available to carry out this part may be used to 
     pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family 
     planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice 
     abortions.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``(3) None of the funds made available to carry out this 
     part may be used for any biomedical research which relates, 
     in whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning.''
       It is clear from the words of this statute that Congress 
     intended to prevent the use of appropriated dollars to pay 
     for the abortion activity described in these sections. The 
     restriction does not make an organization ineligible for 
     assistance, however, if it uses its own money, or funds from 
     other sources, to finance abortions or research about 
     abortion as a method of family planning as long as it agrees 
     not to use United States funds for those purposes.
       Since Sections 104(f) (1) and (3) were enacted in 1973 and 
     1981, respectively, A.I.D. has implemented these limitations 
     by a provision in its population assistance agreements in 
     which the recipient agrees not to use grant funds for the 
     proscribed actions. As indicated in my letter of August 6, 
     1993, the arrangement with WHO/HRP goes further than is 
     standard practice and requires WHO/HRP to maintain the A.I.D. 
     contribution in a separate suballotment to ensure that no 
     United States funds are used for the purposes prohibited by 
     Sections 104(f) (1) and (3) of the FAA, including tests of 
     RU-486. In addition WHO/HRP will report to A.I.D. about where 
     United States funds are used and provide adequate 
     documentation to describe and support the stated 
     expenditures. Under these circumstances, Sections 104(f) (1) 
     and (3) do not bar United States support for WHO/HRP.
       I hope this information answers your questions about 
     assistance for UNFPA and WHO/HRP.
           Sincerely,
     J. Brian Atwood.
                                                                    ____

                                                   U.S. Agency for


                                    International Development,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1994.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Smith: Thank you for your letter of April 
     26, 1994, concerning the United Nations Population Fund 
     (UNFPA) and China's population program.
       Among the issues raised in your letter are those related to 
     the conclusion of UNFPA's current five-year program in China 
     and the expenditure of funds pursuant to this program. The 
     UNFPA has an agreement with China to provide $57 million in 
     assistance for voluntary family planning programs from 1990-
     1994. Our understanding is that UNFPA will not have completed 
     $57 million worth of projects before the end of 1994 and 
     will, therefore, carry over unexpended funds into the 1995 
     calendar year. UNFPA has assured us that they will not spend 
     more than $10 million during 1994 and not more than $57 
     million for the currently approved program in China. Of 
     course, it will not be possible to confirm actual 1994 
     expenditures until the end of this year.
       In my letter to Chairman Obey dated August 6, 1993, I 
     stated that ``... if there are not significant improvements 
     in China's population program, the United States will not 
     support continued UNFPA assistance to China beyond 1995 when 
     the current program ends.'' Our position has not changed.
       The United States, pursuant to law and Administration 
     policy, insists that no U.S. funds be used by UNFPA in China 
     and we have established mechanisms to ensure that UNFPA 
     abides by its commitment not to use U.S. funds in China or to 
     free up resources for use in that country.
       Beyond the question of U.S. funds, as a member of UNFPA's 
     Executive Board, the United States will not support a renewal 
     of UNFPA's program in China unless there are significant 
     improvements in reproductive freedom there. We take this 
     position not because UNFPA condones or supports programs in 
     China to which we object; UNFPA emphatically rejects such 
     strategies and has stated its policy of not participating in 
     such efforts. Our objection is with Chinese practices, and 
     the U.S. will review conditions in China carefully if it 
     requests another new UNFPA assistance program. It is 
     important to note, however, that the ultimate decision about 
     whether to renew UNFPA's program will be made by UNFPA's 
     Executive Board, comprised of donors, of which the U.S. 
     represents only one vote, albeit an important one.
       Finally, with respect to the fiscal year 1995 budget 
     request, the Executive Branch routinely has included funding 
     for UNFPA in the foreign assistance budget every year, even 
     during the period 1986-1992 when USAID did not make a 
     contribution to UNFPA.
       If I can provide you with further information, please let 
     me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                  J. Brian Atwood,
     Administrator.

                          ____________________