Celebrate Earth Day: Become a Sustaining Member! Join LCV Today

International Family Planning

House Roll Call Vote 362

2003 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

216

Votes Against

211

Not Voting

8

Issues

According to the United Nations, in October 1999 the world’s population reached the 6 billion mark–doubling itself in a mere 40 years. This rapid population growth, which exacerbates pollution and accelerates the depletion of natural resources, is one of the most serious threats to a healthy and sustainable environment.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provides family planning and population assistance to more than 140 countries around the world–far more than any other donor agency. UNFPA-funded programs, in addition to slowing population growth and protecting wildlife, offer maternal and child health care, modern contraception, and assistance in HIV/AIDS prevention.

In 1985, Congress enacted the Kemp-Kasten amendment, which denies U.S. funds to any organization that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive or involuntary sterilization.” In 2002, the Bush administration drew on a broad interpretation of this amendment to withhold a $34 million U.S. contribution to UNFPA appropriated by Congress. The decision to deny funding for millions of poor women and families was motivated solely by UNFPA’s presence in China. However, a fact-finding team created by the State Department uncovered “no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in [China].” In fact, UNFPA’s limited program in China is designed to promote greater respect for human rights and to move the country away from its “one child” policy.

During committee consideration of H.R. 1950, the State Department authorization bill, Representative Joseph Crowley (D-NY) inserted an amendment authorizing an annual UNFPA contribution of $50 million for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The amendment also required that the contributions be released promptly unless the president certified that UNFPA “directly supports or participates in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

During House floor consideration of the bill, Representatives Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) offered an amendment to strike the Crowley provision and reduce by $25 million the authorized level of the contribution. On July 15, 2003, the House narrowly approved the Hyde-Smith amendment by a 216-211 vote (House roll call 362). NO is the pro-environment vote. The House then adopted the bill, but the Senate did not complete action on its version of the bill (S. 925) before the end of the session. The 2004 omnibus spending bill, which has passed the House but not yet passed the Senate, appropriated a contribution of up to $34 million for UNFPA, but the release of the funding remains subject to the original Kemp-Kasten restriction, making it unlikely that UNFPA will receive a contribution from the United States during 2004.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%