U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
July 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22663
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Summary
This report provides legislative and policy background concerning U.S. assistance programs in
the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
does not have an official presence in China. The majority of congressional foreign operations
appropriations for the PRC promotes the rule of law, civil society, and political development in
the country. These programs constitute a key component of U.S. efforts to promote democratic
change in the PRC. Other related U.S. activities include participation in official bilateral
dialogues on human rights, public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies.
During the past decade, U.S. democracy assistance to China has grown in size and breadth.
Funding has grown from an annual average of $9.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly
for democracy assistance and aid to Tibetans, to $35.3 million during the 2005-2009 period.
During the latter period, the United States supported not only democracy and Tibetan programs
but also HIV/AIDS programs, educational exchanges, and expanded rule of law programs in the
PRC that include environmental law and criminal justice. Between 2001 and 2010, the United
States government authorized or made available nearly $275 million for foreign operations
programs in China, of which $229 million was devoted to rule of law and civil society programs
and to Tibetan communities.
The Department of State’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) has been the principal
means of support for U.S. rule of law and civil society activities in China. The Development
Assistance (DA) account, administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), has been a growing source of funding for rule of law programs. The U.S. Congress has
played a leading role in initiating programs and determining funding levels for these objectives.
Non-governmental organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, and other countries also provide
substantial democracy-related assistance to the PRC.
U.S. rule of law and civil society programs have created a web of relationships among
governmental and non-governmental actors and educational institutions in the United States and
China. Despite growing contacts and common interests among these entities, Chinese civil
society groups remain subject to PRC restrictions and periodic crackdowns on their activities.
Some of these groups also have been affected by the ups and downs of the U.S.-China bilateral
relationship. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law and civil society efforts in China
have produced limited gains due to PRC political constraints. Others contend that such programs
have helped to build social foundations for political change and have bolstered reform-minded
officials in the PRC government.
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Contents
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1
Policy Debates ...................................................................................................................... 2
Program Development ................................................................................................................ 3
Additional Programs ............................................................................................................. 5
Restrictions on Foreign Aid................................................................................................... 6
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011.................................................................. 6
Legislative History: Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000-FY2007 .................................. 9
FY2000-FY2003................................................................................................................... 9
FY2004-FY2007................................................................................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, FY2000-FY2010 ...................................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Overview
U.S. government support of rule of law and civil society programs (democracy assistance) in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) constitutes a key component of its efforts to promote
democratic change in China. Other related U.S. activities include the U.S.-China bilateral human
rights dialogue, public diplomacy programs, and open criticism of PRC policies.1 During the past
decade, U.S. assistance to the China has grown in size and breadth. Funding has grown from an
annual average of $9.9 million during the 2000-2004 period, mostly for democracy assistance and
aid to Tibetans, to $35.3 million during the 2005-2009 period, which included not only
democracy and Tibetan assistance but also new funding for HIV/AIDS programs and expanded
rule of law programs, such as environmental law and criminal justice.
Compared to U.S. assistance missions in most other Asian countries, U.S. foreign operations
programs in China play less significant roles in the areas of development (health, education, and
economic growth), good governance (through direct assistance to government entities), and
international security. The majority of U.S. funding for programs in China promotes rule of law,
civil society, and political development using special allocations from the Department of State’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). The U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)’s Development Assistance (DA) account has provided growing support for rule of law
programs since 2006. Other foreign operations appropriations provide for aid activities related to
promoting sustainable development and protecting the culture and natural environment of Tibet
and Tibetan areas of China.
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining foreign operations appropriations for China
than it does for most other aid recipients. USAID does not have an official presence or mission in
the PRC, due in part to the PRC government’s reported human rights abuses. Democracy
programs in China are mostly administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor (DRL), which follows Congress’ authorizations in annual foreign
operations appropriations measures, and the Regional Development Mission for Asia. By
contrast, most countries with USAID missions receive most of their assistance through the
Department of State’s regional bureaus, which play principal roles in determining aid levels
through annual congressional budget justifications.
Despite its growth, U.S. assistance to China remains relatively limited. Between 2001 and 2010,
the United States government authorized or made available nearly $275 million for foreign
operations programs in China, of which $229 million was devoted to rule of law and civil society
programs and to Tibetan communities. In FY2010, total funding for U.S. assistance programs in
the East Asia and the Pacific region was an estimated $776 million while appropriations for China
was $48.9 million.2 The top recipients of U.S. assistance in East Asia in 2010 were Indonesia (an
estimated $218 million), the Philippines ($144 million), and Vietnam ($122 million).3
1 See CRS Report RL34729, Human Rights in China: Trends and Policy Implications, by Thomas Lum and Hannah
Fischer.
2 U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justification, FY2011. Appropriations for China includes DRL grants
of an estimated $17 million and Peace Corps funding of $2.7 million.
3 The bulk of U.S. assistance to Vietnam is HIV/AIDS program support.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), China’s top
bilateral official development assistance (ODA) donors are Japan, Germany, France, and the
United Kingdom. In terms of grant disbursements, in 2008, Japan, Germany, and France provided
$283 million, $391 million, and $174 million, respectively. By contrast, the United States
extended $65 million in grant assistance, according to OECD data.4 With the exception of the
United States, major bilateral aid donors to China provide concessionary loans that exceed grant
assistance in dollar value. In 2008, Germany and France extended $493 million and $178 million,
respectively, in ODA loans to the PRC while Japan provided $922 million in loans in 2007. Some
policy makers in these countries have advocated reducing their development aid to China, due
largely to China’s rise as an economic power. According to OECD statistics, Japanese, German,
and French ODA to China in 2008 was devoted predominantly to education programs. In 2008,
the United States provided the greatest funding for “government and civil society” sector
programs ($27.7 million), compared to the largest donors.5
European Union aid efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development, reportedly
exceed those of the United States in terms of funding and place greater emphasis on
commercially-oriented rule of law. According to the European Commission, EU assistance to
China has moved away from the areas of infrastructure and rural development and towards
support for social and economic reform, the environment and sustainable development, and good
governance and the rule of law. The EU funded aid projects and programs worth €181 million
($235 million) in 2002-2006.6 For the 2007-2013 period, the EU plans to allocate €10 million
($13 million) for democracy and human rights programs and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).7 The European Union also has set up a joint law school administered through the
University of Hamburg and located in the China University of Politics and Law in Beijing.
In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S. government
support, offered grants worth $220 million for programs in China between 1988 and 2006. The
Foundation extended grants worth $14.4 million and $21.4 million in 2007 and 2008,
respectively. Ford Foundation program areas in China include government transparency and
accountability, civil society, criminal justice, secondary education, community rights over natural
resources, and reproductive rights.8
Policy Debates
As with many efforts to help reform China’s political system from without, there has been little
evidence of fundamental change. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law and civil
society efforts in China have produced marginal results due to PRC political constraints, such as
the lack of judicial autonomy, restrictions on lawyers, weak enforcement of laws, and severe
curbs on the ability of Chinese citizens to organize and perform social functions independently of
state control. They suggest that the limited influence of China’s judicial, legal, and civil
4 OECD data includes funding that is not reflected in the U.S. State Department’s annual budget justification for China,
such as Department of Energy and Department of Health and Human Services funding. OECD data also includes
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) programs funded through congressional appropriations to NED.
5 OECD: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW.
6 European Commission: External Cooperation Programs http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/country-
cooperation/china/china_en.htm.
7 European Union, China: Country Strategy Paper 2007-13 (Draft).
8 Ford Foundation, 2008 Annual Report: http://www.fordfound.org/grants.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
institutions, organizations, and actors significantly reduces their value as real agents for
democracy, and contend that the U.S. focus should be on changing the way the law is used rather
than expanding existing rule of law programs.9 Some human rights activists also advocate more
rigorous methods of evaluating the effectiveness of democracy programs in China.10
Other analysts contend that foreign-funded rule of law, civil society, and democracy programs in
the PRC have helped to build foundations for political change – more comprehensive laws, more
professional judicial and legal personnel, more worldly and assertive NGOs or social
organizations, and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers – and have bolstered reform-
minded officials in the PRC government. Some experts add that policies that support incremental
rather than fundamental change have the best chance of succeeding in the long run, through
increasing “the capacity of reform-oriented individuals in China to be effective in their own
work,” including those within the government and without.11 Many foreign and Chinese
observers have noted that awareness of legal rights in many areas of PRC society is growing.12
Another study suggests that rule of law and civil society programs are especially valuable through
their direct impact on local officials, social organizations, lawyers, and others.13
PRC civil society groups and social organizations, key targets of U.S.-funded democracy
programs, have raised concerns among China’s leadership about their growing influence and
foreign contacts. Many of them reportedly have experienced a tightening regulatory environment
in recent years.14 Some experts argue that to be more effective, U.S.-supported civil society
programs in China should be insulated as far as possible from U.S. government involvement and
the vagaries of U.S.-China bilateral relations.15
Program Development
United States foreign assistance to the PRC primarily has supported rule of law, civil society, and
democracy-related programs and assistance to Tibetan communities since 2000. Since 1999,
Congress has played a leading role in funding these programs through annual foreign operations
appropriations measures. In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed
upon a U.S.-China Rule of Law Initiative, although U.S. funding for the program was not
provided until 2002. In 1999, Congress began authorizing assistance (to non-governmental
organizations located outside China) for the purpose of fostering democracy in the PRC (P.L.
105-277). In 2000, the act granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China
(P.L. 106-286) authorized programs to promote the rule of law and civil society in China. The
FY2002 appropriations measure (P.L. 107-115) removed China from a list of countries prohibited
from receiving U.S. indirect foreign assistance and lifted the requirement that Economic Support
Funds (ESF) for democracy programs be provided only to NGOs located outside the PRC. The
9 Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.
10 “Funding the Rule of Law and Civil Society,” China Rights Forum, no. 3 (2003).
11 Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
12 Jamie P. Horsley, “The Rule of Law in China: Incremental Progress,” The China Balance Sheet in 2007 and Beyond,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2007.
13 William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.
14 Paul Mooney, “How to Deal with NGOs—Part 1, China,” YaleGlobal Online, August 1, 2006.
15 Gewirtz, op. cit.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
FY2003 appropriations measure (P.L. 108-7) continued the requirement that Tibet assistance be
granted to NGOs but lifted the stipulation that they be located outside China.
Since 2006, Congress has appropriated Development Assistance (DA) to American educational
institutions for exchange programs related to the rule of law and the environment in China. In
2007, the U.S. government began funding HIV/AIDS programs in China using Global Health and
Child Survival (GHCS) account funds. Criminal justice programs funded through the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account began in 2009.
The Department of State’s East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau and Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have administered China programs primarily through DRL’s
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF), which draws from the Economic Support Fund
(ESF) account. In the past decade, Congress has supported increasing support for the Democracy
Fund. Appropriations for the HRDF grew from $13 million in FY2001 to an estimated $70
million in FY2010. China programs have accounted for roughly one quarter of allocations from
the Democracy Fund.
Democracy funding has been channeled largely to U.S.-based non-governmental organizations
and educational institutions with operations or exchange programs in China, which in turn have
provided some support or sub-grants to Chinese “partner NGOs.” Democracy program areas
include human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, information, and the press,
media reform, transparency, judicial independence, criminal and civil rule of law, electoral
reform, public participation, labor rights, minority rights, and migrant rights. The East Asia
Regional Democracy Fund and the HRDF global fund also have provided some ESF for China
and Tibet programs. Because of political sensitivities, DRL does not openly disclose the names of
its grant recipients in China.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a major role in promoting democracy
in China through congressional appropriations. NED is a private, non-profit organization that
promotes democracy around the world. The United States government established NED in 1983
and provides most of its funding. NED supports Chinese pro-democracy organizations in the
United States and Hong Kong; helps to advance the rule of law, promote the rights of workers and
women, and strengthen village elections in China; and assists in the development of Tibetan
communities. The Endowment’s China programs have received grants through three channels: the
annual foreign operations appropriation for NED (an estimated $118 million in FY2010), out of
which approximately $2 million has been devoted to China programs each year since 1999;
annual congressional earmarks to NED for democracy-related programs in the PRC and Tibet;16
and DRL grants to NED’s “core institutes.”17 NED began awarding grants to U.S.-based
organizations supporting democracy in China in the mid-1980s and supporting significant in-
country programs in the 1990s.18 Compared to the U.S. government, NED’s non-governmental
16 Congress provided special authorizations out of the Democracy Fund to NED for programs in China between 2001
and 2007 and Tibet between 2004 and 2009.
17 NED’s core institutes or grantees are: the International Republican Institute (IRI); the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE); and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).
18 Eric T. Hale, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the National Endowment for Democracy, 1990-1999”
(Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 2003), pp. 173-4. For a list of NED China projects, see
http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/asia/china.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
status affords it greater ease and flexibility with which to support relatively overt democratic
groups.
U.S. universities and organizations involved in U.S.-funded rule of law programs include the
University of Massachusetts (judiciary reform), University of the Pacific McGeorge School of
Law and American University Washington College of Law (legal training), Vermont Law School
(environmental law), Western Kentucky University (environmental health), and the American Bar
Association (criminal justice). Implementing partners for Tibet programs include the Bridge
Fund, the Mountain Institute, the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund, and Winrock International. The
Asia Foundation’s administrative law and procedures program also receives USAID support. 19
In 1999, Temple University established the first foreign Master of Laws degree program in China.
The LLM program, conducted in collaboration with Tsinghua University School of Law in
Beijing, educates Chinese judges, prosecutors, government officials, law professors, and lawyers
in U.S. and international legal principles. The State Department and USAID have provided
roughly $12 million for Temple’s activities in China, which also include non-degree legal
education, scholarly research, and curriculum development. The program has educated over 950
Chinese legal professionals, the majority of which (80%) work in the public sector, including
judges, prosecutors, government officials, law professors, and NGO legal staff. “Graduates report
that they are drawing on their Temple legal education as they write judicial decisions, apply rules
of evidence in trial practice, draft laws for national and regional legislative bodies, and infuse
their scholarship with principles of U.S. law.”20
Additional Programs
The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) of the Department of State’s
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance provides grants to private and non-
profit educational and medical institutions in foreign countries. The purposes of such assistance
include fostering mutual understanding, introducing foreign countries to U.S. ideas and practices
in education and medicine, and promoting civil society. Since 1997, ASHA has supported
programs in China, including helping to establish the Center for American Studies at Fudan
University in Shanghai, supporting the Hopkins-Nanjing Center for Chinese and American
Studies in Nanjing, and providing a grant to Project Hope for its efforts at the Shanghai
Children’s Medical Center.
The measure granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to China (P.L. 106-286)
authorized the Department of Labor to establish a program to promote worker rights and related
rule of law training. In 2002, the Bush Administration released two grants totaling $6.4 million
for labor programs in China. A grant of $4.1 million was awarded to a consortium of Worldwide
Strategies, Inc., the Asia Foundation, and the National Committee on United States-China
Relations to conduct education, training, and technical assistance to help improve labor laws and
to promote greater awareness of labor laws among workers and employers as well as to provide
legal aid services to women and migrant workers. The Department of Labor also awarded a $2.3
19 Asia Foundation: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/china/.
20 Temple University Beasley School of Law, Summary of Achievements (March 2010); Temple University Beasley
School of Law, Rule of Law Projects in China: 2007-08 Annual Report; Adelaide Ferguson, “Temple’s Rule of Law
Programs in China” (March 2006); http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/RetrievePage?site=TempleLaw&page=
China+Program.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
million grant to the National Safety Council to help improve mine safety and health conditions in
China.
Restrictions on Foreign Aid
Some U.S. sanctions on the PRC in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including required “no” votes or abstentions by U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions on loans to China (except those that meet basic human
needs).21 Congress also has required that U.S. representatives to international financial
institutions support projects in Tibet only if they do not encourage the migration and settlement of
non-Tibetans (majority Han Chinese) into Tibet or the transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to
non-Tibetans, which some fear may erode Tibetan culture and identity. Furthermore, U.S. laws
that can be invoked to deny foreign assistance on human rights grounds include Sections 116 and
502B (security assistance) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195).
The U.S. government suspended funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) from
2002 through 2008 because of the UNFPA’s programs in China, where the State Department
determined that coercive family planning practices had occurred. In February 2009, the Obama
Administration announced that it would restore U.S. funding for the UNFPA. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2009 (P.L. 111-117) authorized $55 million for the UNFPA. However,
none of these funds may be used for a country program in China.22
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $15 million (through the
HRDF) for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC. 23 The FY2008 appropriations
measure also mandated $5 million from the ESF account for activities that preserve cultural
traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan
communities in China, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy programs related
to Tibet. In addition, $10 million in Development Assistance was appropriated to American
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to democracy,
rule of law, and the environment. China received approximately $7 million in HIV/AIDS program
support in FY2008.
21 Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section 710(a) of the
International Financial Institutions Act. For further information, see CRS Report RL31910, China: Economic
Sanctions, by Dianne E. Rennack.
22 The “Kemp-Kasten” amendment to the FY1985 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 99-88) bans U.S. assistance
to organizations that support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs. For further
information, see CRS Report RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by
Luisa Blanchfield.
23 Since 2004, annual congressional authorizations for democracy funds to China have included Hong Kong and
Taiwan (if matching funds are provided). Hong Kong has received assistance for strengthening political parties
($840,000 in FY2006). Taiwan has not offered matching funds for legal and political reform programs and hence has
not received democracy grants.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
The Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY2009
Earthquake Relief
(P.L. 111-8) appropriated $17 million for the
In July 2008, the U.S. government (USAID and the
promotion of democracy in China. The
Department of Defense) provided a total of $4.8 million
measure authorized $7.3 million in ESF for
in humanitarian relief to areas and victims affected by the
NGOs to support activities that preserve
May 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province that killed
cultural traditions and promote sustainable
nearly 70,000 people. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign
development and environmental conservation
Disaster Assistance awarded $1.2 million to the Asia
Foundation to promote rural housing reconstruction and
in Tibetan communities in the Tibet
raise public awareness about natural disasters. Other
Autonomous Region and other areas of China.
funding went to the International Federation of the Red
The measure also included an appropriation of
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for relief
$250,000 for NED programs in Tibet. In
supplies and to the Los Angeles County and Fairfax
addition, $11 million in Development
County Fire Departments for related support. The
Department of Defense provided $2.2 million for tents
Assistance account funding was made
and emergency relief supplies.24
available to American educational institutions
and NGOs for programs and activities in the
PRC related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment. China received $7.3 million for
HIV/AIDS programs in 2009. The United States government established a resident Legal Advisor
at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing aimed at promoting criminal law reform, professionalizing the
criminal justice system, and enhancing U.S.-China law enforcement cooperation, using $600,000
in INCLE account funds.
In FY2010, democracy programs in China are to receive $17 million out of the HRDF. In
addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2010 (P.L. 111-117) provided $7.4 million for
NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development
and environmental conservation in Tibet and Tibetan communities in the PRC. The act
appropriated $12 million in Development Assistance to U.S. educational institutions and
nongovernmental organizations for programs and activities related to governance, the rule of law,
and the environment in China.25 INCLE funding for criminal justice and HIV/AIDS programs are
to total $800,000 and $7 million, respectively, in 2010.
For FY2011, the State Department requested $5 million out of the ESF account for Tibet
programs, GHCS funding of $7 million for HIV/AIDS efforts, and $850,000 for INCLE
programs. According to the FY2011 Congressional Budget Justification, human rights and
governance remain “high priorities” for the United States. “U.S. assistance helps foster the
development of civil society, and increases cooperation on global health and environmental issues
of mutual concern.”26
24 Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance,
China – Earthquake, Fact Sheet #6, FY2008, August 8, 2008.
25 H.Rept. 111-366, Sec. 7071(a).
26 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
7
Table 1. Selected U.S. Assistance to China, FY2000-FY2010
(thousand U.S. dollars)
Fiscal
Year/
Account
(Program)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals
GHCS
4,800
4,960
4,000
4,000
17,760
USAID
(HIV/AIDS)
GHAI State
1,950
2,000
3,308
3,000
10,258
(HIV/AIDS)
DA (Rule of
4,950
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
42,869
Law)
ESF
1,000
0 10,000 15,000 13,500 19,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 17,000 17,000 147,500
(Democracy
Programs) a
ESF
(Tibet)
0
0
0
0 3,976 4,216 3,960 3,960 4,960 7,300 7,400 35,772
INCLE
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600
800
1400
Peace
1,435 1,298 1,559 977 863 1,476 1,683 1,748 1,980 2,057 2,718 17,794
Corps b
Totals
2,435 1,298 11,559 15,977 18,339 24,692 30,593 37,458 38,819 45,265 46,918 273,353
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a. Congressional appropriations – not specified in State Department annual budget requests for China.
b. The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993.
CRS-8
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Legislative History: Foreign Operations
Appropriations, FY2000-FY2007
FY2000-FY2003
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) provided $1 million for U.S.-
based NGOs (to preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and
environmental conservation) in Tibet as well as $1 million to support research about China, and
authorized ESF for NGOs to promote democracy in the PRC. For FY2001 (P.L. 106-429),
Congress authorized up to $2 million for Tibet. In FY2002 (P.L. 107-115), Congress made
available $10 million for assistance for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule
of law in China, including up to $3 million for Tibet. The FY2003 appropriations measure (P.L.
108-7), provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China, including up to $3
million for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
FY2004-FY2007
In 2004, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor became the principal administrator
of China democracy programs. The FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199)
made available $13.5 million for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, including $3 million for NED.
Appropriations for FY2004 provided a special earmark for Tibet ($4 million). In FY2005 (P.L.
108-447), Congress provided $19 million for China, including $4 million for NED, and
authorized $4 million for Tibet and $250,000 for NED in Tibet. In addition, the FY2005
appropriations measure authorized the use of Development Assistance for American universities
to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange programs related to democracy, rule of law, and the
environment. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 109-265) on the FY2006 foreign operations
appropriations bill (H.R. 3057, signed into law as P.L. 109-102) extended $20 million for China.
For Tibet, P.L. 109-102 authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and
$250,000 to NED in Tibet. The FY2006 appropriations measure also provided $5 million in
Development Assistance to American educational institutions for legal and environmental
programs in the PRC. Because of the late enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution
for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), funding levels for many U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not
specified but continued at or near FY2006 levels. In 2007, NGOs in China began to receive
assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and control efforts ($6.75 million).
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S.-Funded Assistance Programs in China
Acronyms
CSH: Child Survival and Health
DA: Development Assistance
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHCS: Global Health and Child Survival
GHAI: Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
HRDF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
NED: National Endowment for Democracy
NGO: Non-governmental Organization
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
Author Contact Information
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
tlum@crs.loc.gov, 7-7616
Congressional Research Service
10