U.S. Assistance Programs in China
Thomas Lum
Specialist in Asian Affairs
January 6, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22663
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Summary
This report examines U.S. foreign assistance activities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),
including U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
programming, foreign operations appropriations, policy history, and legislative background.
International programs supported by U.S. departments and agencies other than the Department of
State and USAID are not covered in this report.
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC aim to promote human rights, democracy, the rule of
law, and environmental conservation in China and Tibet and to support Tibetan livelihoods and
culture. The United States Congress has played a leading role in initiating programs and
determining funding levels for these objectives. Congressionally mandated rule of law, civil
society, public participation, and related programs together constitute an important component of
U.S. human rights policy towards China. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the United States is the largest provider of “government and civil
society” programming among major bilateral foreign aid donors.
During the past decade, the U.S. Department of State and USAID have administered a growing
number and range of programs in China. Between 2001 and 2011, the United States government
authorized or made available $310 million for Department of State foreign assistance efforts in
the PRC, including Peace Corps programs. Of this total, $257 million was devoted to human
rights, democracy, rule of law, and related activities, Tibetan communities, and the environment.
U.S. program areas include the following: promoting the rule of law, civil society, and democratic
norms and institutions; training legal professionals; building the capacity of judicial institutions;
reforming the criminal justice system; supporting sustainable livelihoods and cultural
preservation in Tibetan communities; protecting the environment; and improving the prevention,
care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS in China. The direct recipients of State Department and USAID
grants have been predominantly U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
universities. Some Chinese NGOs, universities, and government entities have participated in,
collaborated with, or indirectly benefited from U.S. programs and foreign aid grantees.
Appropriations for Department of State and USAID programs in China reached a peak in
FY2010, totaling $46.9 million. Funding decreased by nearly 20% in FY2011, to an estimated
$37.7 million.
Some analysts argue that U.S. democracy, rule of law, environmental, and related programs have
had little effect in China. Furthermore, some policy makers assert that the United States
government should not provide assistance to China because the PRC has significant financial
resources of its own, some of it obtained through unfair trade practices, and can manage its own
development needs. Other observers contend that U.S. assistance activities in China have helped
to protect some rights, build social and legal foundations for political change, and bolster reform-
minded officials in the PRC government. Some experts also propound that U.S. programs have
nurtured relationships among governmental and non-governmental actors and educational
institutions in the United States and the PRC, which have helped to develop common
understandings about democratic norms and principles. Other programs are said to have reduced
environmental and health threats coming from China. Some analysts posit that U.S. programs in
China aim to promote U.S. interests in areas where the PRC government has lacked the expertise
or will to make greater progress.

Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Comparisons with Other Aid Providers (OECD Data) .................................................................... 1
Policy Debate................................................................................................................................... 3
Civil Society in China ............................................................................................................... 3
Program History............................................................................................................................... 4
Major Programs ............................................................................................................................... 5
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (DF)—Democracy Programs ......................................... 5
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and Environmental Programs........................... 6
Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Tibet ..................................................................................... 7
Livelihood and Education ................................................................................................... 7
Environment........................................................................................................................ 7
Cultural Preservation........................................................................................................... 8
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs ......................................... 8
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)—Criminal Law and
Procedure................................................................................................................................ 8
Other Programs and Assistance ....................................................................................................... 8
ASHA ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................... 9
Legislative Restrictions on Foreign Aid to China............................................................................ 9
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012 .................................................................. 10

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2012.................. 11
Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History......................... 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13


Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Overview
U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC primarily aim to promote human rights, democracy, the
rule of law, and environmental conservation in China (including Tibet) and to support Tibetan
livelihoods and culture. With the exception of some programs in Tibet, U.S. assistance to China
does not focus on development objectives such as poverty reduction, economic growth, basic
health care and education, and governmental capacity. Congressionally mandated human rights
and democracy efforts—rule of law, civil society, public participation in government, and related
programs—constitute an important component of U.S. human rights policy towards China, along
with the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, public diplomacy efforts, and reporting on human
rights conditions in the PRC.1 The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not
have an aid mission in China and administers PRC programs through its regional office in
Bangkok, Thailand.
During the past decade, U.S. assistance to China has grown in size and breadth. Between 2001
and 2011, the United States government authorized or made available $310 million for the State
Department’s foreign operations programs in China, of which $257 million was devoted to human
rights, democracy, rule of law and related activities, Tibetan communities, and the environment.2
(See Table 1.) U.S. program areas include the following: promoting civil society, the rule of law,
and democratic norms and institutions; training legal professionals; building the capacity of
judicial institutions and reforming the criminal justice system; supporting sustainable livelihoods
and cultural preservation in Tibetan communities; protecting the environment; and improving the
prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The direct recipients of State Department and
USAID grants have been predominantly U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
universities, although Chinese NGOs, universities, and some government entities have
participated in, benefited from, or collaborated with U.S. programs and grantees. In 2010, USAID
provided the following overview of its programs:
The USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) works with its partners to
promote, change and solidify China’s role as a stable, secure and reliable stakeholder in the
international community. The U.S. Government’s (USG) priorities are to work with non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), universities and other partners to promote the rule of
law and human rights and effective action on environmental and health issues. Activities
promote transparency, citizen participation and good governance. The Mission will also
continue to support activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities.3
Comparisons with Other Aid Providers
(OECD Data)
According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
in 2009, the largest bilateral aid donors, in order of the amount of “official development

1 See U.S. Department of State, 2010 Human Rights Report: China, April 8, 2011.
2 Including Peace Corps programs.
3 USAID, Congressional Notification #185, September 9, 2010. The notification does not refer to programs
administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

assistance” (ODA) provided to China or programs related to China, were Japan, Germany,
France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States. With the exception of the United
Kingdom and the United States, the top bilateral donors all provided over half of their assistance
in the form of concessional loans. In terms of disbursements of ODA grants for China programs,
in 2009, Germany, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom provided $381 million, $297 million,
$183 million, and $77 million, respectively.
The United States government committed or obligated $64 million and disbursed nearly $53
million in grant assistance for programs related to China in 2009, according to OECD data.
Disbursements or allocations in 2009 included the following departments and agencies: USAID
($25.7 million); the State Department ($9.8 million); the Department of Health and Human
Services ($7.2 million); the U.S. Trade and Development Agency ($3.4 million); the Department
of Energy ($2.4 million); and the Department of Agriculture ($1.4 million). The United States is
the largest provider of “government and civil society” programming among major bilateral
foreign aid donors in terms of committed funds.4
European Union (EU) aid efforts in the PRC, particularly in the area of legal development,
reportedly have exceeded those of the United States in terms of funding, but have placed greater
emphasis on commercial rule of law. The EU also has set up a joint law school administered
through the University of Hamburg and located at the China University of Politics and Law in
Beijing. According to the European Commission, during the middle of the last decade EU
assistance to China moved away from the areas of infrastructure and rural development and
towards support for social and economic reform, the environment, sustainable development, good
governance, and the rule of law. The EU funded aid projects and programs in China worth €128
million ($182 million) in 2007-2010.5 Recent program areas and funding levels include the
following: Democracy and Human Rights (€ 1.9 million); NGO Co-financing (€7.2 million);
Gender (women migrant workers – €.7 million); Health (€1 million); Environmental programs
(€8.5 million); Urban Development (environmental, social, and cultural programs – €5.3 million);
Business Cooperation (cooperation, training, and technical assistance – €7.9 million); Higher
Education (€5.2 million); and Information Technology and Communication (€5.3 million).6
In other comparative terms, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S. government
support, has offered grants worth $275 million for programs in China since 1988. The Ford
Foundation aims to “develop the social sector and help marginalized groups access opportunities
and resources.” Working with research entities, civil society organizations, and government
institutions, Ford Foundation efforts promote transparent, effective, and accountable government;
civil society; criminal and civil justice system reform; access to secondary and higher education;
community rights in sustainable development; and education in the areas of sexuality and
reproductive health.7

4 OECD, http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW. OECD data for the State Department included
National Endowment for Democracy grants for China-related programs.
5 European Commission: External Cooperation Programs, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/country-
cooperation/china/china_en.htm. The Euro-U.S.Dollar conversion rate in April 2011 is €1 = $1.4.
6 European Union, China: Strategy Paper 2007-13, http://eeas.europa.eu/china/csp/07_13_en.pdf.
7 http://www.fordfoundation.org/regions/china
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Policy Debate
As with many other efforts to promote human rights and democracy in China, U.S. assistance has
not led to fundamental changes. Some experts argue that foreign-funded rule of law, civil society,
and related 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 civil liberties and the ability of Chinese citizens to perform social functions
independently of state control. Some analysts suggest that the limited influence of China’s
judicial, legal, and civil society institutions, organizations, and actors significantly reduces their
value as real agents for democracy, and suggest that U.S. programs should focus on changing
China’s approach to the law rather than expanding existing rule of law programs.8
Some policy-makers assert that China, which has ample fiscal reserves, some of it arguably
obtained through unfair trade practices, should not receive U.S. foreign assistance. In August
2011, a bipartisan group of Senators authored a letter urging the Committee on Appropriations
and the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs to
“end all U.S. aid to China, other than programs that assist the people of Tibet or promote respect
for human rights and democracy in China, and direct our representatives at international
organizations to work to end multilateral aid to China.”9 Some U.S. political leaders state that
giving assistance to China amounts to “borrowing money from China to give back to China.”10
Other analysts contend that U.S. human rights and democracy programs in the PRC have helped
to protect some rights and build foundations for political change, such as more comprehensive
and detailed laws, more professional judicial and legal personnel, more worldly and assertive
NGOs and social organizations, and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers. Such efforts,
they argue, also have bolstered reform-minded officials in the PRC government. Some experts
add that efforts that support incremental rather than fundamental change have the best chance of
achieving results in the current political environment, in part 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. Another study suggests that rule of law and
civil society programs are especially valuable through their direct impact on social organizations,
lawyers, local officials, and others.12 Some analysts posit that U.S. assistance programs engage
China in areas where U.S. interests and expertise are involved and where the PRC government
has lacked sufficient commitment.
Civil Society in China
U.S. democracy programming operates in a difficult but resilient Chinese social environment. In
the past decade, civil society organizations have mushroomed while a small network of human

8 Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.
9 http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2001-08-04.cfm
10 “Feeding the Dragon: Reevaluating U.S. Development Assistance to China,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011.
11 Paul Gewirtz, “The U.S. China Rule of Law Initiative,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 11 (2003).
12 William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

rights activists and lawyers has emerged. China now has roughly 190,000 lawyers, compared to
roughly 110,000 in 2005, or about one for every 7,000 people.13 This ratio compares to about one
lawyer for every 6,000 people in Japan and every 300 in the United States. However, in the past
few years, the PRC government has stepped up harassment of lawyers and closed law firms that
work on politically sensitive or human rights cases.
According to PRC official estimates, China has nearly 450,000 registered non-governmental or
social organizations, compared to 288,000 in 2004. When social organizations that are not
officially registered are included, their total is estimated to be several million.14 Environmental
groups have been at the forefront of the development of the NGO sector in China. Other areas in
which social organizations operate include legal aid, public health, education, poverty alleviation,
and rural development. Chinese NGOs, some of which have participated in U.S. assistance
programs, have raised concerns among China’s leadership about their growing influence and
foreign contacts. In the middle of the last decade, Beijing began to tighten restrictions on social
organizations while expressing suspicions about foreign assistance and foreign NGOs operating
in China.
Program History
The U.S. Congress plays a greater role in determining foreign operations appropriations for China
than it does for many other bilateral aid recipients. Congress has determined funding levels for
democracy programs in China and aid activities in Tibet through annual foreign operations
appropriations earmarks. Over the past decade funding to support other purposes, such as
HIV/AIDS programming and other efforts, has been supported by Congress as well (see Table 2).
In 1997, President Bill Clinton and PRC President Jiang Zemin agreed upon a U.S.-China Rule of
Law Initiative, though funding for the program was not provided until 2002. In 1999, Congress
began authorizing assistance for the purpose of fostering democracy in China. 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 the PRC. 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. In 2002, Congress made available $10 million from the Economic Support Fund (ESF)
account for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in China, including
up to $3 million for Tibet.
Since 2006, Congress has set aside special Development Assistance account funds for American
universities for education and exchange programs related to the rule of law and the environment
in China. The United States government began implementing HIV/AIDS programs in the PRC in
2007. Criminal justice and other programs conducted by the Resident Legal Advisor at the
American Embassy in Beijing expanded later in the decade.

13 Glenn Norris and Daniel Ren, “Legal System Less Arbitrary but Still a Work in Progress,” South China Morning
Post, April 4, 2011.
14 Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report, October 10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Major Programs
Human Rights and Democracy Fund (DF)—Democracy Programs
Congress plays an important role in determining the size of U.S. human rights and democracy and
programming in China. The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
(DRL) administers democracy programs in China using Democracy Fund account appropriations
as determined by Congress. DRL aims to promote or empower the rule of law, civil society, and
citizen input in government decision making, and to build the capacity of related institutions in
the PRC.
DRL directly funds U.S.-based non-governmental
organizations and U.S. universities. Some funding
National Endowment for Democracy
passes through U.S. NGOs to Chinese social
Established by the U.S. government in 1983, the
organizations as part of projects to train local
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a
NGOs. Through the Bureau’s programs, U.S.
private, non-profit organization that promotes
freedom around the world. NED has played an active
government and non-governmental entities
role in promoting democracy in China since the mid-
engage and influence Chinese NGOs;
1980s. The Endowment carries out its mission in
government-sponsored social organizations and
China largely through grantees which include its core
institutions, such as women’s groups and
institutes,15 the Princeton China Initiative, Chinese,
universities; reformist or progressive government
Tibetan, and Uighur human rights and democracy
groups based in the United States and Hong Kong,
bodies; and legal and judicial institutions and
and a small number of NGOs based in China. The
individuals. Due to political sensitivities and to
Endowment’s China programs have received support
protect its grantees working in China, DRL does
out of the annual congressional foreign operations
not openly disclose the names of its grant
appropriation for NED (an estimated $118 million in
FY2011) and congressional earmarks to NED for
recipients. By comparison, the National
China and Tibet.16 Between 2007 and 2011, NED
Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports
grants for China programs totaled $6.6 million
relatively overt pro-democracy groups and
annually on average. NED’s core institutes have
activities, including Chinese dissidents in exile
received grants from both NED and DRL.
and NGOs in China (see textbox).17 Major DRL
program areas in China include the following:
• Rule of Law: strengthen legal and judicial institutions and promote their
independence; train legal and judicial professionals; increase public access to the
justice system; promote criminal and civil law reform. Temple University’s
Master of Laws degree program in Beijing was a major recipient of USAID
grants and Democracy Fund support.18

15 NED’s core institutes 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).
16 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funding for Democracy-Related Programs
(China), February 27, 2004. 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 Some experts suggest that NED’s non-governmental status affords it greater ease with which to support democracy
efforts in China due to its relative insulation from the political tensions of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship.
18 Temple University received $13 million in USAID grants and Democracy Fund support between 1999 and 2009.
Goldie Blumenstyk, “In China, Thinking Like an American Lawyer,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20,
2009.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

• Civil society: strengthen the capacity of non-governmental organizations,
foundations, and charitable groups in fund-raising and NGO management.
• Citizen participation: promote public input in policy formation and public
dialogue.
• Labor: advance labor law, rights, and advocacy; develop collective bargaining
mechanisms; strengthen migrant worker rights.
• Good governance: support government transparency and electoral reform.
• Civil liberties: promote freedom of expression, the press, and information;
advance mass media development; support freedom of religion.
Development Assistance (DA)—Rule of Law and
Environmental Programs
Between 2006 and 2011, Congress earmarked Development Assistance (DA) account funds for
rule of law and environmental programs in China. U.S. assistance has helped to provide Chinese
law students with legal training, enhance the capacity of Chinese law colleges and judicial
institutions, facilitate U.S. engagement with PRC bar associations, develop citizen awareness of
the legal system, and strengthen laws that safeguard civil and women’s rights. USAID’s criminal
justice efforts in the PRC have included making trial procedures more open, supporting the
adoption of a national law that would exclude illegally obtained evidence, and creating guidelines
for defense lawyers in death penalty cases.19 Administrative law programs have aimed to increase
transparency and public participation in government. Another USAID activity involves the
training of PRC judicial officials on intellectual property rights. U.S. educational institutions
participating in these programs have included the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of
Law, American University Washington College of Law, and the University of Massachusetts.
PRC partner universities include the China University of Political Science and Law, Zhejiang
Gongshang University, and South China University of Technology.
USAID has administered several environmental programs in China using Development
Assistance funds. Some experts note that air pollution from China has adversely impacted North
American air and water, particularly on the U.S. West Coast. For example, according to USAID,
30% of the particulate pollution in California and 30% of the mercury pollution in North
American lakes emanate from Chinese coal-fired power plants.20 In 2010, USAID’s
environmental activities in China reportedly prevented 257,776 metric tons of CO2 equivalent
from being emitted.21
The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law has helped to train environmental law
professionals, advance reform in China’s environmental law, and build capacity in environmental
governance. Vermont Law School, in partnership with Sun Yat-sen University in the city of
Guangzhou, has administered this program. The U.S.-based Institute for Sustainable
Communities and the World Resources Institute implemented the Guangdong Environmental

19 Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development, before the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 15, 2011.
20 Ibid.
21 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Assistance to China (Taken Question),” Daily Press Briefing, November 4, 2011.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Partnership (GEP) and the U.S.-China Partnership for Climate Action (PCA) with initial funding
from USAID, support from U.S. private corporations, and the collaboration of U.S. and Chinese
research institutions, PRC communities and government agencies. The GEP has promoted
improved energy use and environmental, health, and safety policies and regulations in local
factories. The PCA has focused on industrial and power plant energy efficiency and urban
policies promoting low greenhouse gas emissions in two Chinese provinces.
In 2011, USAID provided a grant to the Freeland Foundation for countering the trafficking of
wildlife in China and elsewhere in Asia. The Asia Regional Response to Endangered Species
Trafficking (ARREST) program aims to reduce environmental and health threats caused by
wildlife smuggling. According to one study, the annual economic damage in the United States
from invasive species, including those from China, is estimated to be $123 billion. Illegal wildlife
trade also can transmit diseases to humans. Other USAID environmental efforts in China have
included supporting clean energy investment and development, promoting energy efficiency in
commercial buildings, assisting in water and sanitation projects, raising standards in the
production of fluorescent lamps, and combating illegal logging.22
Economic Support Fund (ESF)—Tibet
U.S. assistance has supported sustainable development, environmental conservation, and cultural
preservation in Tibet since 2000. The implementing partners for USAID programs in Tibet and
Tibetan communities are the Bridge Fund, the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund, and Winrock
International.
Livelihood and Education
USAID activities in Tibetan areas aim to promote the formation and development of business
associations, business development centers, herder cooperatives, small businesses, eco-tourism
enterprises, and crop and livestock production. U.S. assistance programs include professional,
business, and management training and vocational education for Tibetans. Other educational
projects and activities include primary school facilities improvements, teacher training, and
English language instruction. ESF funds support efforts to provide Tibetans with water and
sanitation services, improved access to health services, teacher training and schools, greenhouses,
and micro-loans. U.S. programs aim to expand citizen involvement in local community
development planning, economic enterprises, and social services.
Environment
U.S. assistance to Tibetan communities includes support for research and development related to
environmentally safe grassland management and endangered species mitigation. USAID
programs promote the use of solar energy and the sustainable use of forests. They have helped to
build water supply and waste management systems. Other USAID efforts include training
Tibetans in natural resource management and environmental conservation and raising awareness
about climate change and its local effects, reducing vulnerability, and developing responses to
environmental changes.

22 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, “China: U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance
Publication, Fiscal Year, 2009.”
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Cultural Preservation
USAID cultural efforts in Tibet include the following: Tibetan language instruction; preservation
of traditional heritage, culture, and art, including scriptures, books, and dance; restoration of
historical sites and buildings; and the marketing of traditional products.
Global Health and Child Survival (GHCS)—HIV/AIDS Programs
Since 2007, the United States has supported programs to address HIV/AIDS problems in regions
of high incidence in China. The Department of State, USAID, and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention have aimed to enhance the ability of Chinese local and provincial
governments to respond to the disease in the areas of prevention, care, and treatment. U.S.
assistance focuses on the development of health systems or models—including monitoring and
research—that can be replicated or adopted by PRC provincial governments. Efforts have been
made to bring non-state actors, such as health experts, into the policy-making process. Recipients
of direct and indirect U.S. assistance include local non-governmental organizations, community-
based groups, government-sponsored social organizations, clinics and health care workers, and
provincial health bureaus. USAID works with, but does not provide assistance to, the PRC Center
for Disease Control. Implementing partners are Family Health International, Population Services
International, Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Research Triangle Institute, Micro
International, and Management Sciences for Health.
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)—
Criminal Law and Procedure
INCLE account funding supports the Resident Legal Advisor (RLA), based in the U.S. Embassy
in Beijing, to provide expertise on U.S. criminal law and procedure to PRC government officials,
legal scholars, and academics, and to “promote long-term criminal justice reform consistent with
international standards of human rights.” Reform areas include coerced confessions, the rights of
defense lawyers, and evidence at trial. The PRC government reportedly has taken steps to apply
more rigorous standards towards pre-trial detentions and capital convictions, reduce abusive
interrogation practices, and protect some rights of defense lawyers. The RLA also is involved in
U.S.-PRC law enforcement cooperation in the areas of counter-narcotics, corruption, money-
laundering, counter-terrorism, computer crime, and intellectual property rights. Most of the
RLA’s activities are conducted by the RLA alone or in cooperation with nongovernmental
organizations.23
Other Programs and Assistance
ASHA
The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) of USAID’s Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance provides grants to private and non-profit

23 U.S. Department of State, FY2012 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

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 projects 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.
Disaster Assistance
In July 2008, the United States government (USAID and the Department of Defense) provided a
total of $4.8 million in humanitarian relief to areas and victims affected by the May 2008
earthquake in Sichuan province that killed nearly 70,000 people. USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance awarded $1.2 million to the Asia Foundation to promote rural housing
reconstruction and raise public awareness about natural disasters. Other funding went to the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for relief supplies
and to the Los Angeles County and Fairfax County fire departments for related support. The
Department of Defense provided $2.2 million for tents and emergency relief supplies.
Legislative Restrictions on Foreign Aid to 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 no longer stipulated that ESF
account funds for democracy programs in China be provided to NGOs located outside the PRC.24
Ongoing restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance in China and other relevant legislative provisions
include
• Some U.S. sanctions in response to the Tiananmen military crackdown in 1989
remain in effect, including the requirement that U.S. representatives to
international financial institutions vote “no” or abstain on loans to China (except
for those that meet basic human needs).25
• U.S. representatives to international financial institutions may support projects in
Tibet only if they do not encourage the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans
into Tibet or the transfer of Tibetan-owned properties to non-Tibetans, which
some fear may erode Tibetan culture and identity.26
• None of the multilateral assistance made available for the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) may be used for a country program in China.27

24 See Section 523, Prohibition Against Indirect Funding to Certain Countries, and Section 526, Democracy Programs.
25 Pursuant to Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1990-91 and Section 710(a) of the
International Financial Institutions Act.
26 See H.Rept. 112-331, Sec. 7044(a).
27 See H.Rept. 112-331, Sec. 7085(c). 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.
Congressional Research Service

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

• 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).
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2011-FY2012
For FY2011, the State Department requested $7 million for HIV/AIDS efforts and $850,000 for
the Resident Legal Advisor; the final allocations were $5 million and $800,000 for HIV/AIDS
programs and the RLA, respectively. For Tibet programs, the State Department requested and
allocated $5 million. Development Assistance funds for rule of law, human rights, and
environmental programs totaled approximately $7 million in FY2011, compared to $12 million in
FY2010. U.S. democracy programs in China using DF account funds continued roughly at
FY2010 levels ($17 million).28
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) provides $7.5 million in ESF funds for
non-governmental organizations to support activities which preserve cultural traditions and
promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan areas of China. The
bill also appropriates $12 million from the ESF account for U.S. institutions of higher education
and NGOs for democracy, governance, rule of law, and environmental programs in the PRC.29


28 The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) did not specify
funding amounts for foreign assistance programs in China.
29 See the conference report (H.Rept. 112-331) that accompanies H.R. 2055 (P.L. 112-74). The report states: “These
programs should support training for citizens, lawyers, and businesses on key issues including criminal justice,
occupational safety, and environmental protection.”
Congressional Research Service

---

Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2012
(thousand U.S. dollars)
Account
2011
2012
(Program)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
estimate estimate
GHCS


6,750
6,960
7,308
7,000
5,000
3,000
(HIV/AIDS)
DA (Rule of

4,950
5,000
9,919
11,000
12,000
7,000 0
Law,
Environment)
ESFa












12,000
ESF/DF
1,000

0 10,000 15,000 13,500 19,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 17,000 17,000 17,000
n/a
(Democracy
Programs)b
ESF
(Tibet)
0
0
0
0 3,976 4,216 3,960 3,960 4,960 7,300 7,400 5,000 7,500
INCLE
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600
800
800
850
(Criminal
Justice)
Peace Corpsc 1,435 1,298 1,559 977 863 1,476 1,683 1,748 1,980 2,057 2,718 2,900 4,700
Totals
2,435 1,298 11,559 15,977 18,339 24,692 25,643 37,458 38,819 45,265 46,918 25,700
—
Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional budget justifications for foreign operations; Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
a. The conference report (H.Rept. 112-331) that accompanies H.R. 2055 (P.L. 112-74), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, recommends $12 million from the
ESF account for U.S. institutions of higher education and NGOs for democracy, governance, rule of law, and environmental programs in the PRC.
b. Administered by the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
c. The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993.

CRS-11

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History
(FY2000-FY2010)
Fiscal
Year Legislation
Provisions
2000
P.L. 106-113
Provided $1 million from the ESF account for U.S.-based NGOs to preserve cultural
traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in
Tibet and Tibetan communities as well as $1 million to support research about China,
and authorized ESF account funding for NGOs to promote democracy in the PRC.
2001
P.L. 106-429
Authorized up to $2 million for Tibet.
2002
P.L. 107-115
Made available $10 million for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China, including up to $3 million for Tibet.
2003
P.L. 108-7
Provided $15 million for democracy-related programs in China and Hong Kong,a
including up to $3 million for Tibet and $3 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) for programs in China; continued the requirement that assistance for
Tibetan communities be granted to NGOs but lifted the stipulation that they be located
outside China.
2004
P.L. 108-199
Made available $13.5 million for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the
rule of law in China, including $3 million for NED; provided a special ESF earmark for
Tibet ($4 million).
2005
P.L. 108-447
Provided $19 million for democracy-related programs in China, including $4 million for
NED, and authorized $4 million for Tibet and $250,000 for NED for human rights and
democracy programs related to Tibet; authorized the use of Development Assistance
account funds for American universities to conduct U.S.-China educational exchange
programs related to the environment, democracy, and the rule of law.
2006 P.L.
109-102 Extended $20 million for democracy-related programs in China, including $3 million for
(H.Rept. 109-
NED; authorized $4 million for Tibet and Tibetan communities in China and $250,000
265)
to NED for Tibet; provided $5 million in Development Assistance account funds to
American educational institutions for democracy, rule of law, and environmental
programs in the PRC.
2007
P.L. 110-5
Because of the late enactment of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007,
funding levels for many U.S. foreign aid programs for the year were not specified but
continued at or near FY2006 levels.
2008
P.L. 110-161
Provided $15 million for democracy and rule of law programs in the PRC; mandated $5
million for Tibetan communities in China and $250,000 to NED for Tibet; appropriated
$10 million to American educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities
in the PRC.
2009
P.L. 111-8
Appropriated $17 million for the promotion of democracy in China and $7.3 million to
NGOs for aid activities in Tibetan communities in China; provided $250,000 to NED for
programs in Tibet; made available $11 million to American educational institutions and
NGOs for programs and activities in the PRC related to the environment, governance,
and the rule of law.
2010
P.L. 111-117
Authorized funding for democracy-related programs in the PRC and $7.4 million for
NGOs to support activities related to cultural preservation, sustainable development,
and environmental conservation in Tibetan areas. Appropriated $12 million to U.S.
educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities related to the
environment, governance, and the rule of law.
Source: Congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.
Notes: Not all special appropriations for China were allocated fully or allocated during the year in which they
were authorized.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

a. Since FY2003, congressional authorizations for democracy programs in China have included Hong Kong.
The U.S. government provided $450,000 and $922,000 in FY2006 and FY2010, respectively, for programs to
strengthen Hong Kong political parties. Since FY2003, U.S. funds also have been made available to Taiwan
for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, if matching funds are provided. To date, Taiwan
has not received U.S. democracy assistance.

Acronyms
DA: Development Assistance
DF: Human Rights and Democracy Fund (Democracy Fund)
DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
ESF: Economic Support Fund
GHCS: Global Health and Child Survival
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
13

---