By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 12, 2002; Page A02

The White House has put a temporary hold on millions in family planning funds until President Bush decides whether to set aside the money altogether to signal opposition to China's population control methods, according to administration and congressional sources.

Antiabortion groups and lawmakers have pressed Bush to withhold $34 million from the U.N. Population Fund this year. They say the agency tacitly condones forced abortions and sterilization by providing aid to family planning programs in China. The agency's officials say they support only voluntary programs and do not fund abortions.

President Bush has frequently sided with abortion opponents since taking office, helping dismantle several Clinton-era policies. Almost exactly one year ago, Bush reinstated a ban on giving any taxpayer dollars to overseas groups that performed abortions, provided abortion referrals or lobbied on the question of abortion.

One White House official said yesterday that Bush has not decided how much money to give the population fund. But several lawmakers supportive of abortion rights criticized the delay, saying they negotiated for weeks to reach a compromise on the contentious abortion issue as part of a foreign operations bill that was just signed into law Thursday.

Since 1999, lawmakers had agreed to reduce the U.S. contribution by one dollar for every dollar the Population Fund spent in China; under last month's deal the Senate agreed to lower the amount of money for the fund in exchange for taking out such restrictions.

"This act is against the will of Congress, against the written support of [Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, and against the crucial needs of millions of women and children around the world," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.).

Republicans said Bush had every right to reject the funding under the agreement. The spending bill allows the administration to spend as much as $34 million for the program, but it does not set a minimum amount.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage is scheduled to discuss the matter with White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. on Wednesday, according to several sources. Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Amy Call said the president appreciated the "flexibility" Congress had given him on the question of family planning.

The day after Congress approved the foreign operations bill, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) -- one of the House's most active abortion opponents -- urged Bush to "provide zero funding" for the U.N. fund.

In a Dec. 21 letter to the president, Smith noted that existing law allows Bush to freeze such money if he determines the group "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

"I am thankful that our country now has a president who will listen to the plight of persecuted women and children in China and other countries where the UNFPA operates," Smith wrote.

U.N. officials sharply disputed allegations that their money supports forced abortion. They said they closely monitored the programs they supported and sent over an independent team last year to investigate such charges.

They estimated the loss of U.S. funding could undermine their capacity to prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 mothers and 77,000 children under the age of 5, said Stirling D. Scruggs, an agency spokesman. He said the cash shortfall would take a "huge bite" out of the agency's international AIDS prevention programs.

The issue has stirred controversy within the State Department, which is responsible for dispensing the family planning funds. Powell has consistently supported the U.N. program, telling a House committee last spring that it "provides critical population assistance to developing countries."

The Bush administration asked Congress last year to provide the agency with $25 million. In November, it gave the program $600,000 to buy sanitary supplies, clean undergarments and emergency infant delivery kits to Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.), who wrote Bush this week protesting any delay in funding, emphasized that Americans were better off funding such humanitarian efforts.

"Working for the long-term stability of these countries is in the direct national interest of the United States," Kirk said in an interview yesterday.

It remains unclear whether these lawmakers' objections will influence Bush's final decision. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) threatened to force a vote on the matter this year, saying she would not let the administration hold the funds "hostage."

Staff writer Mike Allen and correspondent Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.