#14

150 International Affairs:Eliminate Funding for the 
United Nations Population Fund

Savings in Millions of Dollars
  • 2016
    36
  • 2017
    36
  • 2018
    36
  • 2019
    36
  • 2020
    37
  • 2021
    38
  • 2022
    39
  • 2023
    40
  • 2024
    40
  • 2025
    41
  • 2016-2020
    181
  • 2016-2025
    379

Sources

Savings are expressed as budget authority and were calculated by using the FY 2014 estimated spending levels as found on page 177 of U.S. Department of State, “Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs,”  This estimated spending has been increased at the same rate as discretionary spending in the CBO’s most recent August 2014 baseline spending projections.

×

Technical Notes on Scoring

CBO Baseline

Unless otherwise noted, calculations for savings for each recommendation relies on the most recent Congressional Budget Office baseline, as found in “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,” published August 27, 2014, has been used.

Savings “Totals”

While totals for the five and 10 year savings are provided by section and for the complete set of recommendations, there are two reasons they should not be viewed as representing total savings for The Budget Book.

First, as noted in the introduction, The Heritage Foundation would recommend that the savings realized in the Function 050 Defense section would stay within the Department of Defense to strengthen the nation’s defense capabilities.

Second, the numbers cannot be deemed to represent the realized savings if every single recommendation were adopted because policy changes made in one program can impact spending levels in other programs.  Thus, the numbers in the table do not reflect any potential interactions between the various policy changes affecting spending or savings.

×

Heritage Recommendation:

Eliminate funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This proposal saves $36 million in 2016, and $378 million over 10 years.

Rationale:

Why would US support China’s “one child policy”? Stop funding the UN Population Fund!

UNFPA has faced continued assertions that it has been complicit in enforcement of China’s coercive one-child policy.1 The policy is often enforced by Chinese family planning officials through fines, forced abortions, and involuntary sterilization.

For years, the U.S. withheld funding to UNFPA under the Kemp–Kasten amendment that prohibits U.S. international aid from supporting coercive abortion procedures or involuntary sterilization.2 In 2009, however, Congress exempted UNFPA funding from the Kemp–Kasten language and has since sent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to UNFPA, with the most recent allocation providing $35 million per year to the organization. Concerns about UNFPA donations were multiplied by a report released in 2011, which identified the organization among four of the United Nations’ largest aid agencies found to have stockpiled a total of $12.2 billion in unused donations in 2009.3

Congress should permanently eliminate all federal funding to UNFPA.

Endnotes

  1. Steven Mosher, “China’s One-Child Policy and UNFPA: A Silent But Deadly Partnership,” LifeNews.com, july 10, 2012, 
(accessed December 11, 2014).  

  2. Daniel Briggs, “The Kemp–Kasten Provision and UNFPA Funding,” Americans United for Life, April 23, 2010, 
 (accessed December 11, 2014).  

  3. Brett Schaefer, “Congress Should Renew the Report Requirement on U.S. Contributions to the U.N. and Reverse Record-Setting Contributions to the U.N.,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3324, July 22, 2011. 

Why would US support China’s “one child policy”? Stop funding the UN Population Fund!

Contributing Expert

Sarah Torre focuses on policy issues related to religious liberty, marriage and family as policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

See publications by Sarah Torre

Sarah TorrePolicy Analyst

Heritage Experts

A vice president of The Heritage Foundation, Jennifer A. Marshall runs the think tank’s Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity. In that capacity, she oversees research into a variety of issues that determine the strength and character of American society.  Issues explored by Institute researchers range from marriage, life, and religious liberty to health, education, and welfare to the application of America’s founding principles to today’s challenges.

See publications by Jennifer A. Marshall

Jennifer A. MarshallVice President for the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory.

See publications by Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D.

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D.William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society

Additional Reading