[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.

                                  
