Population Assistance Programs: Impending Congressional Action

Kerry Dumbaugh
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

Updated February 3, 1997

97-147 F

SUMMARY

Congressional debate over U.S. population assistance policy was quite contentious in the 104th Congress. House and Senate differences over abortion restrictions and United Nations population programs were such that the 104th Congress was not able to agree to a final, long-term resolution on what level of abortion restrictions should govern U.S. international family planning assistance. Instead, House, Senate, and White House negotiators eventually reached a settlement that did not directly address the abortion issue. The settlement, included in the FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations measure, represented more of a temporary solution to the family planning issue requiring further presidential and congressional action in February 1997.

The FY1997 omnibus measure provided $385 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for international family planning programs for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1996, but under a formula that severely restricted those programs. Under the formula, none of the appropriated funds may be spent until July 1, 1997 -- nine months into the fiscal year. Further, the omnibus measure "metered" family planning assistance spending by providing that after the July 1997 date, USAID will be able to program only 1/12th of its appropriated total each month -- or about $32 million -- over the next year.

Finally, the omnibus measure contained a provision that could allow USAID to begin spending its FY1997 money earlier -- on March 1, 1997 -- under two conditions: if the President, by February 1, determines that the delay in funding is having a negative impact on the functioning of the population planning program; and if Congress, by February 28, approves the President's determination. President Clinton submitted such a determination on January 31, 1997. Although the omnibus measure specifies that Congress will consider a non-amendable joint resolution, opponents of the early disbursement of USAID funds may introduce a new, parallel measure that would reopen the 1996 debate in an effort to discard the "metering" system and, instead, reinstate "Mexico City Policy" restrictions on USAID population assistance programs. In either case, Congress is likely to consider the international population assistance issue in February 1997.

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE ON U.S. POPULATION ASSISTANCE

For over a decade, Congress has engaged in contentious debates over U.S. international population assistance policy, often as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations. Twice, congressional positions on this issue have been one of the major reasons prompting a presidential veto. The debate most often has focused on three elements: 1) funding for population programs; 2) restricting abortion activities; and 3) limiting U.S. association with coercive family planning practices, primarily in China.

Of particular note in the 104th Congress was the fundamental disagreement between the House and the Senate over two of these issues: funding for international organizations involved in voluntary abortion programs; and funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has programs in China, where there is strong evidence of government-sponsored coercive family planning practices.

Funding Levels. During the 1990s, funding for U.S. international family planning programs was one of the largest growth areas of the U.S. foreign aid budget. From an average of about $250 million in the late 1980s, FY1995 spending across all Foreign Operations appropriations accounts totaled approximately $548 million. For FY1996, the President requested $635 million, a 10% increase. But when Congress deadlocked over abortion-related restrictions and U.S. population aid policy, thus blocking movement of the entire Foreign Operations bill for FY1996, lawmakers adopted an interim provision that did not directly relate to the deadlocked issues. Among other things, the interim provision limited the amount of funding for USAID family planning programs to 65% of the level obligated in FY1995. As a result, FY1996 funding for U.S. population programs was set at $356 million, the smallest amount since FY1992 and nearly half what USAID had planned to spend. For FY1997, the Administration requested $435 million for population aid.

Restrictions on Abortion-Related Activities -- "Mexico City Policy". A second issue in the population aid debate deals with the eligibility of organizations to receive funds and implement U.S.-sponsored family planning programs. In the 1980s, in what has become known as the "Mexico City policy," both the Reagan and Bush Administrations restricted funds for any non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that were involved in voluntary abortion activities, even if U.S. funds were not used for such activities. A few groups, including International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), became ineligible for U.S. financial support when they refused to renounce abortion-related activities carried out with non-U.S. funds. In some years, Congress narrowly approved measures to overturn the Mexico City prohibition, but White House vetoes kept the policy in place. President Clinton in 1993 reversed the "Mexico City policy," allowing funding to resume for all family planning organizations so long as U.S. money was not used directly in abortion-related work.

United Nations Programs. A final population aid issue involves funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and its operations in China, where there is strong evidence of government-sponsored coercive family planning practices, including forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. For several years during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, the United States denied all contributions to UNFPA because of its work in China. Opponents of this policy argued that by not funding UNFPA, the United States was undermining voluntary family planning goals in the 140 countries in which UNFPA operated. President Clinton sought to restore UNFPA funding, and gained congressional support beginning in FY1994, but with mandatory reductions if UNFPA China programs increased beyond their planned levels.

CONTROVERSY IN THE 104TH CONGRESS

...in the FY1996 appropriations process (H.R. 1868)

The "Mexico City policy" and UNFPA funding became the sources of a fundamental disagreement between the House and Senate in the 104th Congress. The resulting stalemate delayed enactment of the FY1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 1868) for over four months. The House position, sponsored by Representative Chris Smith (N.J.), supported reinstating the "Mexico City policy" restrictions on U.S. aid funds. The Smith amendment also prohibited a U.S. contribution to UNFPA unless the President certified that the organization had terminated its program in China or there had been no coercive abortions in the family planning program of the Chinese government. The Senate, on the other side, deleted the House provisions dealing with Mexico City policy and UNFPA, leaving decisions in the hands of the Administration. In conference, Members were unable to reach a compromise and reported the bill back to their respective bodies in disagreement. Over the next three months, the House and Senate voted five times to sustain their respective positions on population assistance, stalling final action on the overall legislation.

A "compromise" position was eventually reached in late January 1996. Rather than resolving the broad population program issue, the compromise language instead permitted the stalled Foreign Operations measure to move forward while shifting the debate on family planning policy to other legislation in a way that offered incentives to both sides to find common ground. Under the terms of the enacted text, no U.S. population assistance funds or contributions to UNFPA could be obligated before July 1, 1996, unless Congress approved legislation authorizing such funds. Without such authorization, USAID could only begin to obligate family planning assistance and make contributions to the U.N. Population Fund in the final quarter of the fiscal year, and then, only with some substantial limitations. Although restrictions proposed by Representative Smith did not apply, spending for these two activities was limited to 65% of the FY1995 level and funds were apportioned over a 15-month period at a rate of not more than 6.67% each month. As a result, USAID was able to obligate only about $72 million of its FY1996 population funding in that year and had to supplement programs with carryover money appropriated in prior years.

... in the FY1997 appropriations process (H.R. 3549)

House Actions. In the FY1997 appropriations cycle, the House recommended modifying the family planning restrictions of the FY1996 bill. Although the modifications would have been somewhat less disruptive to Administration population aid activities, they still were not endorsed by either side of the abortion controversy. Under the House plan, USAID would have received 65% of the FY1995 appropriation for population programs in FY1997, which amounted to the same $356 million level as in FY1996. Organizations that certified they would adhere to "Mexico City policy" restrictions could receive USAID population assistance without conditions. Those that did not so certify, however, were limited to a grant equal to 50% of the amount of funding they received in FY1995. As it was for FY1996, population aid spending would be delayed through monthly apportionments -- at a rate of 8.34% per month -- but only for the first quarter of FY1997, after which USAID could allocate the balance of appropriated funds.

For UNFPA, the House capped U.S. contributions at $25 million, $5 million below the request, but conditioned the aid subject to an Administration certification that UNFPA activities in China have ended and that the organization has no plans to re-enter China in 1997.

Senate Actions. On an 8-5 vote June 18, the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee deleted the House population text and substituted an amendment by Senator Leahy that: established a population aid account at $410 million for FY1997; stipulated that eligibility requirements for U.S. population funds for NGOs shall not be more restrictive than those applied by the U.S. to foreign government eligibility (essentially removes abortion work performed by NGOs with their own funds as a restriction of eligibility for U.S. funding); permitted an increase to $35 million for the U.S. contribution to UNFPA; and required the President to reduce the UNFPA contribution only by the amount, if any, that UNFPA plans to spend in China in 1997.

Similar to FY1996, Congress' inability to agree on population aid policy stalled congressional debate on the Foreign Operations bill. After agreeing on September 17 to all other matters in dispute, House and Senate conference committee members adjourned with the family planning issue still unresolved.

FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations (P.L. 104-208). House, Senate, and White House negotiators eventually reached a settlement for inclusion in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act that, as in FY1996, represented more of a temporary, stop-gap solution, setting the stage for Congress to reconsider the issue early in 1997. The enacted legislation, 1 as supported by the Senate and the White House, deleted the House-passed limitation on funds for family planning organizations that use private money for abortion-related activities. Population aid funding was set at $385 million, about mid-way between House and Senate recommendations. Availability of the money also was delayed until July 1, 1997, at which time USAID will be able to program only one-twelfth of the total -- about $32 million -- each month over the next twelve months. Finally, the omnibus measure provided that the funding could be made available as early as March 1, 1997, if the President, by February 1, issued a determination that the July 1 funding delay was having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the international population assistance program. Under the terms of the omnibus measure, Congress, on or before February 28, 1997, would have to give its approval through passage of a joint resolution approving the President's determination.

EARLY ACTION IN THE 105TH CONGRESS

On January 31, 1997, President Clinton issued the required determination. As expected, the determination concluded that the July 1, 1997, limitation on USAID funding obligations was having a negative impact on the population planning program. In the accompanying press statement and justification for his determination, the President emphasized that under longstanding U.S. law and policy, no USAID funds may be used to fund abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate any person to have an abortion. The justification statement also stated that "urgent funding needs during the March-July 1997 period would total more than $35 million," and that without a March release of USAID's FY1997 metered funds, nearly 18% of USAID's population planning programs would have to suspend, defer, or terminate their services.

The omnibus measure is both specific and narrow in the range of action it gives to the Congress in response to the President's determination. Among other things, it requires that a joint resolution be introduced on the same day as the President's determination; it provides the exact text of the joint resolution; it requires that no amendments be in order; and it stipulates that committees have five calendar days to report the resolution or face automatic discharge. Nonetheless, Congress may not necessarily have to meet this timetable.

For example, either the House or Senate may modify its own procedures, thus internally delaying congressional action on the population issue. Theoretically, Congress may also amend the original omnibus measure, perhaps by extending the deadline for congressional action. There are some indications that House opponents of early disbursement for USAID funds may be seeking to convince House leaders to allow a parallel resolution to have equal standing as an alternative to the joint resolution of approval for the President's determination. Such an alternative resolution need not be confined to the restrictions of the omnibus Act, and could try to place new restrictions on USAID or reopen other portions of the 104th Congress' debate on the family planning assistance issue.

IMPLICATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

The disbursement delay and "metering" limitations that current law imposes on USAID funding have several major consequences for USAID family planning programs. Under the enacted 65% limitation, USAID was able to program only about $356 million for population aid in FY1996, 35% less than in FY1995 and 44% below the requested amount. Moreover, the delay until after July and the subsequent slow distribution of funds under the "metering" provisions resulted in the disruption of some existing population projects and the modification of other new project starts. In FY1996, USAID was able to compensate for some of the spending cuts by drawing on unobligated funds that had been appropriated in prior years. According to USAID figures, this amounted to $80 million, thus allowing USAID to obligate approximately $151 million in FY1996. But those prior-year funds have been depleted, and USAID's funding for FY1997 will be limited to a three-month portion of the actual appropriation -- about $96 million. In addition to this delayed FY1997 funding, USAID has been receiving throughout the fiscal year the "metered" portions of its delayed FY1996 funding -- approximately $23 million per month. Absent congressional approval of a presidential determination, then, USAID's available obligations in FY1997 should be approximately $380 million. Although USAID will have more money in FY1997, the "pipeline" of agency reserves was nearly exhausted by the FY1996 spending delay. Consequently, some USAID project managers, who normally work with a four to five month pipeline, now have little money on hand to fund USAID's project commitments.

Although the 65% limitation and "metering" restrictions for USAID have nothing to do with the abortion issue per se, proponents of keeping these funding restrictions in place argue that only by severely restricting population assistance funding can they force the White House to choose population planning alternatives that do not include abortions. This group may vigorously oppose any presidential determination to move up the timetable for funding. Those who support easing existing restrictions -- who are likely to support a presidential determination -- argue that denying family planning and other contraceptive services to women causes abortion rates to increase. Although Congress will be considering at least the funding delay issue in February 1997, a wide range of population assistance issues are likely to be debated again later in 1997, when foreign aid authorizations and appropriations bills for FY1998 are considered.

Endnotes

1 Sec. 518A of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 1997, as incorporated in Section 101(c) of P.L. 104-208.