INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION

Senator INOUYE. How much are you providing to the International Planned Parenthood Federation in fiscal 1978?

Mr. NOOTER. $14 million planned for fiscal 1978, Mr. Chairman. Senator INOUYE. The Auditor General's report dated March 12, 1976 did you see that report?

Mr. NOOTER. Yes.

Senator INOUYE. The report said that the federation had "followed the practice of making interest-free personal loans to some of its high-level employees."

Mr. NOOTER. That was correct. That has now been changed.
Senator INOUYE. To what has it been changed?

Mr. NOOTER. There are no longer interest-free loans being made to the staff of the organization.

Senator INOUYE. What kind of loans were made?

Mr. NOOTER. As far as I know, they have ceased making loans for housing purposes.

Senator INOUYE. What was the rationale for providing these interest-free personal loans?

Mr. NOOTER. The impression I got in discussing it with the auditors and with Ms. Henderson, who is head of IPPF, and perhaps has some additional points to make, was that this was a general practice in the United Kingdom.

Senator INOUYE. That is a "rich-get-richer" type program, because in the report it says the interest-free loans were only made to the top people.

Mr. NOOTER. To the senior staff, that is correct.

Senator INOUYE. And the lower levels got regular loans?

Mr. NOOTER. That is right. We certainly didn't agree to that, and that is why we made an issue of it at the time as a result of the auditor pointing it out.

Senator INOUYE. Before the Auditor General's report was made public, were you aware of this practice?

Mr. NOOTER. I don't recall having been aware of it. I don't know whether Dr. Ravenholt was or not.

Dr. RAVENHOLT. No; I was not aware of this before. After this was brought to our attention, we did go into it rather thoroughly with the Board and the treasurer of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and I can say that after looking at this thoroughly that I feel that it was an action which was perhaps unfortunate insofar as an unfortunate practice, but it was not a venal thing, it was an adjustment that was made by the IPPF leadership at the time they employed the new Secretary General, Julia Henderson.

They made certain promises to her with respect to expectations.
Senator INOUYE. These were for a special purpose?

Mr. NOOTER. Right. It was sort of an adjustment to the cost of living and cost of getting established in London, and this was a way of cushioning that costly transition.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Coming back to the question the chairman asked you. In your statement you mention $28 million of additional funding for the U.N. Fund, as I understand.

Mr. FURMAN. That is correct.

Senator SCHWEIKER. What is the logic again, behind that? I am troubled by that too, because it seems to me the Congress has very specifically expressed its will in terms of in what respect of these associated organizations we fund, and to come in and sort of make an "end run" is to, I think, violate the intent of Congress in terms of the degree or proportionate share, pro rata share that we provide. Well, it is really subverting the will of Congress on this issue, as I understand, unless there is something I am missing.

Mr. FURMAN. It is certainly not our intention to subvert the will of Congress on our part. It is the intention to focus our program funds in one single account. We found this to be a very effective way of dealing with UNFPA because funds coming directly through our agency and through the population office of this agency, where the working relationship is in a one-on-one situation, rather than going through the sort of intermediate process of funding through the State Department.

Senator SCHWEIKER. But we are already providing 25 percent of the moneys for their activities, is that correct?

Mr. FURMAN. That is correct. But this is the sum total of any contributions going to the UNFPA from the U.S. Government. There is nothing going in the International Organizations account at all. This is the only contribution made.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, that is what I am trying to get clarified up here when you refer to the UNFPA program.

Mr. FURMAN. That is right.

Senator SCHWEIKER. The United States provides 25 percent of its funding. Is that $28 million the 25 percent, or is it in addition to 25 percent?

Mr. FURMAN. That is it. The $28 million is the 25 percent.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Oh, well, that is what I wasn't clear on. That obviates my question. And you request $28 million on the basis that it is 25 percent, then, you say?

Mr. FURMAN. We haven't tried to set any particular percentage level. We tried to not go above the 25 percent, because we are trying to encourage other donors to increase their contributions. In the past few years a considerable effort has been made to encourage the OPEC countries to contribute more resources.

Dr. RAVENHOLT. In the first year, we contributed a much higher proportion. The first year, for example, we contributed to the Secretary's Trust Fund 85 percent; then we came down to about 57 percent, 45 percent, and I have here actually a more detailed sheet showing what the others are contributing and what we have been contributing during these years.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, does any other money-I think I have got the answer now, but let me go back a bit-does any other money out of the general U.N. pot, or any special U.N. pot, go to the UNFPA in which we are contributors?

Dr. RAVENHOLT. NO.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Or is this the sole source of U.S. money?

Dr. RAVENHOLT. To the best of my knowledge, this is the sole source of U.S. funds for the United Nations population program.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Now, the Chair asked you about making contribution to the International Planned Parenthood Federation of $14 million, I believe.

Mr. FURMAN. Right, sir.

Senator SCHWEIKER. What other groups, similar or related or parallel groups, do we contribute to out of this funding mechanism? Are there any?

Mr. FURMAN. There are no other international organizations such as IPPF or UNFPA. There are other American-based organizations that are what we call intermediaries, for example Family Planning International Assistance which is a church-related organization of the Population Council, the Pathfinder Fund and the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. These are the private intermediary organizations that we deal with in the delivery of services and training.

Senator SCHWEIKER. As part of your grant and assistance programs? Mr. FURMAN. Right, sir. And all of these organizations are funded out of the population planning account of the $177 million that is proposed for fiscal year 1978.

STERILIZATON PRACTICES

Senator SCHWEIKER. I read the horror story, I guess you saw in the paper, about that priest in India who came from a sect, who obviously didn't need any population planning either in his religious beliefs or in his practical beliefs, and yet he was seized, unfortunately sterilized, and released. How widespread is that population program? This was cited as an abuse in India.

Mr. FURMAN. Speaking first of that issue in India, we have not provided any bilateral assistance to India in the field population planning, or for other development programs since 1972. Or actually fiscal year 1973. But we are not contributing anything in any way to support the program, the sterilization program in India, through any intermediary in India. I underscore this.

In general, our program has to be voluntary in character. As far as we are concerned, we protect that like the Holy Grail.

Senator SCHWEIKER. But we are multilateral.

Mr. FURMAN. UNFPA is and so is IPPF. But none of our funds used through IPPF, as I understand.

Dr. RAVENHOLT. But I just add, Mr. Congressman, that we have tried particularly training for Indian physicians at Johns Hopkins hospital, and so forth, but as Mr. Furman has indicated, our program is entirely built on voluntarism and we abhor any indication of compulsion in this. In the case of India, there were attempts at excess coercion in 1976.

Senator SCHWEIKER. That might have changed yesterday.

Dr. RAVENHOLT. It changed very greatly, and I think the slate is wiped somewhat clean as a result of political turnover.

Mr. FURMAN. I was going to say, clearly this had a great impact on political relationships out there. It was a very serious problem.