United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Feinstein Calls on the Bush Administration to Reconsider Decision to Divert $34 million from
UN Fund for Population
July 24, 2002

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today called on the Bush Administration to reconsider its decision to withhold $34 million from the United Nations Fund for Population (UNFPA). Earlier this week, the Administration announced that it plans to divert the funding from the UNFPA to the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The following is the text of Senator Feinstein's statement that was entered into the Congressional Record:

"Mr. President, I rise today to express my very deep regret that the Bush Administration has decided not to release the $34 million allocated for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I would ask the White House to reconsider its decision.

At stake here is vital assistance for needy individuals throughout the developing world, living under the threat of HIV infection and deteriorating health conditions. Indeed, it is a shame that such assistance -- assistance that can save lives -- is being held hostage by domestic politics, and the misconceptions of the anti-choice wing of the Republican party.

I would remind the Administration that the $34 million was appropriated by Congress in a spirit of bipartisan consensus, after two months of negotiations. During these talks there was never any question whether or not to allocate the funds, but simply how much.

The White House's own budget proposal for FY2002 included $25 million for the Fund, $3.5 million more than allocated by the Clinton Administration. Within this context, the Administration's decision is all

the more perplexing. It stands as painful proof that the debate over U.S. support for international family planning has been distorted all out proportion.

In particular, there remains a belief, in some quarters, that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities either condones or even assists in abortion and coercive sterilization. This is, at best, nothing but hearsay. And if such proof does exist, why haven't we seen or heard anything substantive about it?

With respect to China, in May the State Department sent a mission to investigate such allegations, and it found no evidence at all of that the Fund was involved, in any way, in abortion or coercive sterilization. A month before, a British delegation drew a similar conclusion.

For the record, I would like to quote directly from the State Department's conclusions. 'We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in [China].' In light of this finding, the report recommends, and I quote, 'that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.'

Mr. President, I would also argue that it is precisely because of the questions raised about China's policies, that United Nations presence there becomes that much more important. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities remains the best way to do this. Only last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, saying that it was engaged in 'critical population and assistance to developing countries.'

This explains why the Department of State provided $600,000 to the Fund for sanitary supplies, clean undergarments, and emergency infant delivery kits for Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities does not subsidize abortion services in any country. Its Executive Director, Madame Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, has said that the Fund would cease its family planning program in China, if any allegations of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization could be verified.

I would also argue that we would be wise to focus on the wider role that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities plays, most notably in the critical area of HIV prevention. And I would remind my colleagues of just a few of the troubling facts revealed at the recent AIDS conference in Barcelona.

In Botswana, for example - a country where 38% of the adult population is infected with HIV - 20% of high school age students believe that you can tell whether a person has HIV/AIDS simply by looking at them.

In Malawi, where 15% of all adults are HIV positive, 64% of young men admit to not using a condom with their most recent sexual partner. The scourge of AIDS throughout sub-Saharan Africa is a human tragedy of terrifying proportions.

How can we turn our backs on those not yet infected, especially when the reason for doing so is based on unfounded allegations and a misunderstanding of the term 'family planning.' There are no hidden meanings, there is no secret agenda. Family planning does not condone or promote abortion. Simply put, family planning means:

Women able to control their reproductive destinies,

Couples given the information necessary to make their own choices about family size and the timing of births;

Health care officials reaching out to adolescents and young adults, as a means to educate them, and in turn prevent HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies.

Healthy families - the heart of any healthy society - depend upon women being able to make informed choices. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities helps women do just that - make a choice - which I hold to be a fundamental right of women everywhere, regardless of their economic circumstances.

Women here in the United States take such information for granted, and we can not forget that this is all too often unavailable to poor women in the developing world.

How to protect themselves from HIV or other sexually-transmitted diseases, how to space pregnancies so that they can better manage the size of their families, and how to lower the risks of childbirth and increase their chances of delivering healthy babies - this is at the heart of the information the United Nations Fund for Population Activities provides. This strikes me as hardly immoral or illegal.

In closing, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the world's population today stands at more than six billion - a figure that shows no signs of stabilizing. In fact, the United Nations estimates this number could double, to 12 billion, by the year 2050. The brunt of this growth will impact precisely those areas least able to absorb it - namely, the developing world. Over-population has already caused significant problems, like malnutrition, disease, environmental degradation, and political instability. If we in the United States bury our heads in the sand here, it will become increasing likely that over-population could overwhelm such fragile societies.

Given such alarming facts, the purpose of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities - to reduce poverty, improve health and raise living standards around the world - will become only more important in the years to come.

Either we help support international family planning efforts, in a way that is both responsible and accountable; or

We relinquish our leadership role, and turn our backs on the developing world.

The Bush Administration seems to have taken the latter course, and I can only hope, Mr. President, that it reconsiders its decision and will do what is right. It should release the $34 million allocated to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Failure to do so would set an unfortunate precedent."