U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Congressional research reportJan 12, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

(name redacted)

Specialist in Asian Affairs

January 12, 2016

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RS22663

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Summary

This report examines U.S. foreign assistance activities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),

undertaken by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development

(USAID). The report also discusses related 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, as well as Department of State public diplomacy

programs, are not covered in this report.

U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the PRC aim to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule

of law; support sustainable livelihoods, cultural preservation, and environmental protection in

Tibetan areas; and further U.S. interests through programs that address environmental pollution

and pandemic diseases in China. The U.S. Congress has played a leading role in determining

program priorities and funding levels for these objectives. These programs constitute an

important component of U.S. human rights policy toward China. Although the United States is

not the largest bilateral aid donor to China, it is the largest provider of government and civil

society programming, according to data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD).

In 2000, the act granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106286) authorized programs to promote democracy in the PRC. Between 2001 and 2015, the United

States government allocated over $417 million for Department of State and USAID foreign

assistance efforts in the PRC, including Peace Corps programs. Of this total, $342 million was

devoted to democracy, human rights, and related activities; Tibetan communities; and the

environment. The direct recipients of State Department and USAID grants have been

predominantly U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and universities. Chinese

NGOs, universities, and some government entities have participated in or indirectly benefited

from U.S. programs, or have collaborated with U.S. 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 40% between 2010 and 2012 and

has since remained at lower levels. Reduced appropriations have resulted in the discontinuation of

a number of rule of law and environmental programs.

Some policymakers argue that the United States government should not fund foreign assistance

programs in the PRC because Beijing has significant financial resources and can manage China’s

own development needs. Other critics say that U.S. democracy, human rights, rule of law,

environmental, and related programs have had little effect in China. Some observers fear that

growing PRC restrictions on civil society could further undermine U.S. aid efforts. Some experts

counter 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. They argue that U.S.

assistance activities in China have helped to develop protections of some rights, build foundations

for the rule of law and civil society, and bolster reform-minded officials in the PRC government.

Some proponents suggest that U.S. programs have nurtured relationships among governmental

and nongovernmental actors and educational institutions in the United States and the PRC, which

have helped to develop common understandings about human rights, the rule of law, and related

principles and norms. Other programs are said to have reduced environmental and health threats

coming from China.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Contents

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Comparisons with Other Foreign Aid Providers ............................................................................. 2

Policy Debates ................................................................................................................................. 4

Congressional-Executive Commission on China: Policy Recommendations ........................... 5

U.S. Assistance to China: History ................................................................................................... 5

Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Assistance to China ...................................................................... 6

Programs and Funding Accounts ..................................................................................................... 6

Democracy Programs (Democracy Fund Account)................................................................... 6

Tibet (Economic Support Fund Account) ................................................................................. 7

Global Health Programs (Global Health Programs Account) ................................................... 9

Criminal Law and Procedure (International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

Account) ............................................................................................................................... 10

Rule of Law and Environmental Programs (Development Assistance and Economic

Support Fund Accounts)....................................................................................................... 10

Internet Freedom ...................................................................................................................... 11

Tables

Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2016 ................. 13

Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History ........................ 14

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 17

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Overview

U.S. foreign assistance efforts in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) primarily aim to promote

human rights and democratic norms; strengthen the rule of law; counter global public health

threats and the spread of pandemic diseases; and improve livelihoods, promote sustainable

development and environmental conservation, and preserve traditional culture in Tibetan areas.

Congressionally mandated foreign assistance programs constitute an important component of

U.S. human rights policy toward China, along with the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue,

public diplomacy efforts, reporting on human rights conditions in the PRC, and multilateral

diplomacy at the United Nations and elsewhere.1 With the exception of some Tibetan and

infectious disease programs, U.S. assistance efforts in the PRC do not focus on development

objectives such as economic growth, poverty reduction, basic health care and education, and

governmental capacity. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not have

an aid mission in China and administers PRC programs through its regional mission in Bangkok,

Thailand. The Department of State refers to China “as a development partner with the resources

to invest in its own future.”2

Between 2001 and 2015, the United States government allocated over $417 million for the

Department of State’s foreign operations or aid programs in China,3 of which $342 million was

devoted to democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and related activities; Tibetan communities;

and the environment. (See Table 1.) Program areas supported by U.S. assistance have included

the following: civil liberties; governmental transparency and accountability; legal training and

awareness; access to legal counsel; capacity building of nongovernmental organizations; criminal

justice reform; labor rights; private sector competitiveness, job skills training, and support to

traditional artisans in Tibetan areas of China; and the prevention, care, and treatment of

HIV/AIDS. The direct recipients of State Department and USAID grants have been

predominantly U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and universities. Chinese

NGOs, universities, and some government entities have participated in or indirectly benefited

from U.S. programs or collaborated with U.S. foreign aid grantees.4

Some analysts fear that growing PRC restrictions on civil society could adversely affect U.S.

assistance programs. Chinese leaders long have been wary of domestic Chinese NGOs receiving

foreign support, and, in recent years, PRC authorities have stepped up monitoring of Chinese

NGOs that accept outside funding. In 2015, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s

Congress considered new legislation on the management of foreign NGOs. Draft regulations

place foreign NGOs and their activities under the oversight of Public Security departments and

impose greater limitations or controls related to their supervision, funding, and staffing. Many

experts believe that these and other new laws would give the public security apparatus greater,

arbitrary authority over a wide range of social activity, and seriously impede the development of,

and stifle innovation in, Chinese civil society. In September 2015, a bipartisan group of U.S.

Senators sent a letter to President Obama expressing concerns about the human rights situation in

For further information on human rights conditions in China and related U.S. policy, see CRS Report R43964, Human

Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues for the 114th Congress, by (name redacted)

U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016.

Including Peace Corps programs.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), Explanatory Statement, Division K, §7043, stated: “The

Secretary of State and USAID Administrator are directed to provide no assistance to the central government of the PRC

under Global Health Programs, Development Assistance, and Economic Support Fund, except for assistance to detect,

prevent, and treat infectious diseases.”

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

China. The letter stated: “The rise of civil society in China has been one of the only human rights

success stories of the past two decades, and it is imperative the U.S. speak up to protect it.”5

In FY2011, foreign operations appropriations for programs in China began to decline after

peaking in FY2010. Congress eliminated funding for several law programs run jointly through

U.S. and PRC universities, as well as a number of collaborative environmental programs. Since

FY2012, Congress has approved funding for U.S. assistance programs in the PRC but at reduced

levels.

Comparisons with Other Foreign Aid Providers

According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

multilateral and bilateral official development assistance (ODA) from all donors to China has

fallen since the mid-2000s. In 2013, the most recent year for which complete OECD numbers are

available, the largest bilateral aid donors to China, ranked by the amount of ODA, were Germany,

France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Denmark. About two-thirds of ODA from

Germany and 60% from France were provided in the form of concessional or low-interest loans.

The United Kingdom and the United States do not provide development loans to China. Japan,

once a large provider of loan assistance, stopped extending such financing to China in 2008. In

terms of ODA grants, in 2013, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States

offered $274 million, $163 million, $30 million, and $50 million, respectively, to the PRC. OECD

data indicate that the United States was the largest source of support for “government and civil

society” sector activities in 2013 ($18.4 million), largely provided through the National

Endowment for Democracy (NED), followed by Germany ($16.3 million).6 German and French

development programs in China largely focus upon education, health, water supply and

sanitation, environmental protection, agriculture, and “other social infrastructure and services.”7

Some bilateral donors have begun to reduce assistance to China due to Beijing’s ability to finance

its own development and provide foreign aid to less developed countries. In 2011, the United

Kingdom and Australia announced that they would begin phasing out their aid programs in China,

and the European Union (EU) announced that it would cut ODA to 19 emerging economies,

including Brazil, China, and India, beginning in 2014.8 The European Commission stated that

China “has moved from being a traditional recipient of overseas development assistance to the

position of a strategic partner.... Increasingly, the country is an important source of aid for other

developing countries.”9

The EU reportedly funded aid projects and programs in China worth €224 million ($291 million)

in 2007-2013.10 Program areas included the following: democracy and human rights; NGO

“Senators Urge President Obama to Raise Human Rights Concerns during upcoming September Visit by Chinese

President Xi Jinping to the United States,” August 11, 2015, http://www.cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/

senators-urge-president-obama-to-raise-human-rights-concerns-during-upcoming-september-visit-by-chinesepresident-xi_jinping-to-the-united-states6

In terms of “committed funds.” OECD, Creditor Reporting System, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=

CRS1.

Ibid.

“EU to Cut Aid to 19 Emerging Countries from China to Brazil,” Agence France Presse, December 7, 2011.

European Commission, “International Cooperation and Development, China,” https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/

countries/china_en.

European Commission: External Cooperation Programs, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/countrycooperation/china/china_en.htm.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

financing; gender (women migrant workers); health; environmental programs; urban

development; business cooperation; higher education; and information technology and

communication.11 The EU currently lists ongoing, multi-year aid efforts in China worth

approximately €15 million ($16 million). Program areas include strengthening civil society and

promoting non-state actors in the following activities: combating HIV/AIDS; empowering and

integrating young migrant populations; enhancing disabled persons organizations; caring for

children-at-risk, particularly children of convicted parents; assisting people with mental health

conditions; protecting the environment through public awareness and corporate responsibility;

and supporting sustainable development in Tibet.12

OECD data include not only State Department and USAID funding, but also international

programs carried out by other U.S. agencies. In 2013-2014, the Department of Energy (DOE),

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) supported major activities in China. DOE efforts in China included programs to promote

nuclear security through the reduction and protection of nuclear materials. TDA is an independent

U.S. foreign assistance agency that is funded by Congress, whose mission is to promote the

export of U.S. goods and services for development projects in emerging economies. HHS efforts

in the PRC focused on the control of infectious diseases. In addition, the Department of the

Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency administered relatively small programs in

China to protect endangered species and address air pollution.13 OECD data also include

programs administered by the National Endowment for Democracy, a private foundation that

receives an annual congressional appropriation.

Some private entities also support human rights, the rule of law, civil society, and environmental

conservation in China. For example, the Ford Foundation, which does not receive U.S.

government support, is one of the leading providers of assistance to China in the areas of civil

society and good governance. It has offered grants worth over $350 million for programs in China

since 1988. The Foundation’s grants database listed over 87 programs with total funding of

approximately $18 million during 2012-2015.14 Working with research institutes, civil society

organizations, and government entities in China, Ford Foundation activities aim to promote civil

society and philanthropy; transparent, effective, and accountable government; civil and criminal

justice system reform; access to secondary and higher education; community involvement in

natural resources policy; and awareness in the areas of sexuality and reproductive health.15

Programs include research on civil society; courses in citizen participation, social accountability,

and governance for NGO leaders; legal aid and education; and training for villagers and local

officials regarding rights under current laws and policies. Oxfam Hong Kong has been engaged in

poverty alleviation, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, disaster relief, civil society

development, and other efforts in mainland China since 1987. Oxfam reported that in 2013, the

organization spent $14.2 million on programs, administered in partnership with Chinese NGOs

European Union, China Strategy Paper 2007-13, January 1, 2013, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/

documents/eu_china/china_sp_en-final.pdf.

European Commission, “International Cooperation and Development, China,” op. cit.

OECD, Creditor Reporting System, ibid; USAID, “U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants,” http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/

; USAID, https://explorer.usaid.gov/.

Ford Foundation, History (China), http://www.fordfoundation.org/regions/china/history/; Ford Foundation Grants

Database, http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/search.

http://www.fordfoundation.org/pdfs/library/China-brochure-2011.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

and government entities, related to labor conditions, education for migrant children, violence

against women, and environmental protection.16

Policy Debates

As with many other efforts to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in China,

some observers maintain that U.S. assistance has not led to meaningful changes. They posit that

foreign-funded rule of law, civil society, and related efforts in China have produced marginal

results due in part to the Chinese Communist Party’s rejection of many forms of institutional

checks on state power. Inherent obstacles to reform, they assert, include the lack of judicial

autonomy, restrictions on lawyers, weak enforcement of laws, and severe curbs on civil liberties

and the ability of NGOs and Chinese citizens to perform social functions independently of state

control. Some human rights activists argue that some U.S. stakeholders involved in such activities

may refrain from supporting tougher U.S. approaches toward China’s human rights abuses in

order to protect their programs and policy interests. They suggest that U.S. assistance should

focus on changing China’s understanding of the rule of law, rather than expanding existing

programs.17

Other experts assert that U.S.-funded programs in the PRC have helped to strengthen protections

of some rights, promote good governance practices, build foundations for the rule of law and civil

society, and temper the effects of periodic political crackdowns. For example, the efforts of the

United States government and private organizations, such as the Dui Hua Foundation, reportedly

have helped to achieve some progress in the area of criminal justice reform in China in recent

years.18 Some experts refer to the role of U.S. programs in promoting access to legal counsel;

greater professionalism among judicial and legal personnel; increasingly worldly and dynamic

NGOs and social organizations; and a cadre of human rights activists and lawyers. Some argue

that U.S. assistance efforts respond to broad Chinese interest and support, and many observers

note that awareness of legal rights among many segments of PRC society is growing.19

Some Members of Congress have advocated eliminating U.S. assistance activities in the PRC,

with the exception of aid to Tibetans and some human rights and democracy programs. In

particular, during the 112th Congress, after a decade of congressional support for expanded

programming, some Members argued that China does not need or deserve U.S. assistance, due to

its enormous trade surplus and foreign exchange reserves, allegedly unfair trade practices, and

poor human rights record.20 Some proponents of U.S. programs in China responded that U.S.

assistance does not provide support to the PRC government, U.S. programs benefit U.S. interests,

Oxfam Annual Report 2013/2014, http://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/annualreport.aspx.

Interview with a representative of Human Rights Watch, December 2014; Paul Eckert, “U.S., China Set 2011 Rights

Meeting in ‘Candid’ Talks,” Reuters, May 14, 2010.

The Dui Hua Foundation is a U.S.-based human rights organization that focuses on the treatment of prisoners as well

as criminal justice and women’s rights in China. John Kamm, Dui Hua Foundation, “China’s Human Rights

Diplomacy: Past, Present, Future,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 28, 2014.

William F. Schulz, “Strategic Persistence,” Center for American Progress, January 2009; “Temple University

Leaders Celebrate China Rule of Law Program’s 15th Anniversary,” November 20, 2014, http://news.temple.edu/news/

2014-11-20/temple-university-leaders-celebrate-china-rule-law-program-s-15th-anniversary.

“Webb: Stop Sending China Money,” August 6, 2011, http://webhttp://www.jameswebb.com/articles/foreign-policynational-security/webb-stop-sending-china-money-2; Jim Angle, “Senators Outraged U.S. Borrowing Big from China

While Also Giving Aid,” Fox News.com, October 24, 2011; Chairman Donald A. Manzullo, “Opening Statement,”

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.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

and they operate in areas where the PRC government has lacked sufficient capacity or

commitment.

Some Members also opposed U.S. environmental programs in China, asserting that it is not the

responsibility of the United States to help alleviate China’s environmental problems. They argued

that such assistance may unfairly bolster China’s economy through the possible transfer of

environmental and energy-saving technologies. Furthermore, they emphasized, China has been

accused of not enforcing environmental regulations and of unfair trade in the clean energy sector.

However, some U.S. officials defended the environmental programs, noting that air pollution

from China has adversely impacted North American air and water, particularly on the U.S. West

Coast. They asserted that USAID’s environmental activities in China have helped to mitigate this

impact.21

Congressional-Executive Commission on China: Policy

Recommendations

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) monitors human rights and the rule

of law in China and submits an annual report with policy recommendations to the President and

Congress.22 While not directly commenting on U.S. assistance programs in China, the CECC’s

annual report for 2015 advocates U.S. engagement in various areas, including some in which U.S.

assistance programs have been active. The report’s recommendations include calls for the U.S.

government to support programs, training, technical assistance, exchanges, collaboration, and

capacity-building of local NGOs in China in the following areas: legal aid; the rights of citizens

seeking redress under the State Compensation Law; criminal justice reform; the rights of workers,

migrants, women, and ethnic minorities; and environmental rights and policies. In addition, the

report supports “democracy promotion and rule of law programs that are adapted to China” and

partnerships between U.S. academic institutions and NGOs and their Chinese counterparts aimed

at expanding the “Chinese legal system’s potential to be a vehicle for protecting citizens’

rights.”23

U.S. Assistance to China: History

Congress has played a direct role in determining the Administration’s foreign assistance policies

for China. Congress has initiated major programs in China and inserted special provisions or

instructions in foreign operations appropriations legislation regarding U.S. assistance activities in

the PRC. (See Table 2.) In 1999, Congress began approving funding 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 nongovernmental organizations located outside China to support activities that

Statement of Nisha Biswal, U.S. Agency for International Development, 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; U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Assistance to China (Taken Question),” Daily

Press Briefing, November 4, 2011.

In 2000, the legislation that granted permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment to China (P.L. 106-286)

created the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. The commissioners are Members from both chambers of

Congress and officials from the executive branch.

Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2015, October 8, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation

in Tibetan areas in China.24 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

appropriated until five years later. 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.

In 2006, Congress set aside special Development Assistance account funds for American

universities to engage in education and exchange programs related to democracy, the rule of law,

and the environment in China. These programs largely were phased out in 2012. 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 in 2009.

Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Assistance to China

U.S. laws that can be invoked to deny foreign assistance on human rights grounds include

Sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195).25 Foreign operations

appropriations legislation also may impose restrictions or conditions. For example, 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 Tibetanowned properties to non-Tibetans, which some fear may erode Tibetan culture and identity.26 U.S.

contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) may not be used for a country

program in China.27

Programs and Funding Accounts

Democracy Programs (Democracy Fund Account)

The Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) administers

programs in China using Democracy Fund (DF) account appropriations. Funding levels largely

have been determined by Congress. DRL’s efforts in China constitute the bureau’s largest country

For a full list of U.S. government programs related to Tibet, see CRS Report R43781, The Tibetan Policy Act of

2002: Background and Implementation, by (name redacted) .

Section 502B applies to security assistance.

See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), Division K, §7043(f)(1): “The Secretary of the

Treasury should instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution to use the voice

and vote of the United States to support financing of projects in Tibet if such projects do not provide incentives for the

migration and settlement of non-Tibetans into Tibet or facilitate the transfer of ownership of Tibetan land and natural

resources to non-Tibetans, are based on a thorough needs-assessment, foster self-sufficiency of the Tibetan people and

respect Tibetan culture and traditions, and are subject to effective monitoring.” See also the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002,

Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2003 (P.L. 107-228), §616.

See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), Division K, §7082(c). The “Kemp-Kasten”

amendment, which has been included in annual foreign operations appropriations since FY1985, bans U.S. assistance

to organizations that, as determined by the President, support or participate in the management of coercive family

planning programs. Under Kemp-Kasten, Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush suspended

contributions to the UNFPA due to concerns about coercive family planning practices in China. President Obama has

supported U.S. contributions to the organization. For further information, see CRS Report RL33250, U.S. International

Family Planning Programs: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) .

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

assistance program. DRL seeks to promote the rule of law, civil society, public participation in

local government decisionmaking, and government transparency in the PRC. According to the

State Department, its projects in China “complement U.S. policy of principled engagement and

emphasize areas where financial support from the Chinese government is improbable, i.e.

protecting populations at risk.”28

DRL directly funds U.S.-based and international nongovernmental organizations and universities.

Through the Bureau’s programs, U.S. and international nongovernmental entities engage Chinese

NGOs; government-sponsored social organizations and institutions, such as women’s groups and

universities; reform-oriented government bodies; and legal and judicial institutions and

individuals. Due to political sensitivities in China, DRL does not openly disclose the names of its

grant recipients. Major DRL program areas in China have included the following:29



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.30

Civil society: develop the capacity of nongovernmental organizations,

foundations, and charitable groups in fund-raising and NGO management.

Citizen participation: promote public dialogue and input regarding the formation

of policy.

Labor: advance labor law, rights, and advocacy; develop collective bargaining

mechanisms; strengthen migrant worker rights.

Good governance: support government transparency and accountability.

Civil liberties: promote freedom of expression, the press, and information;

advance mass media development; support freedom of religion.

Tibet (Economic Support Fund Account)

Since 2000, Congress has made available Economic Support Funds (ESF) for sustainable

development, environmental conservation, and cultural preservation in the Tibet Autonomous

Region (TAR) and Tibetan communities in China. Nearly half of China’s ethnic Tibetans live in

the TAR. Other Tibetan areas include parts of the PRC provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and

Yunnan. U.S. programs also aim to expand citizen involvement in local economic enterprises,

development planning, and social services and increase the capacity of Tibetans to compete in the

formal economy. The Department of State also administers health, education, refugee, and

scholarship programs for Tibetan exile communities in India and Nepal.31

U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016.

Interviews with staff at the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, June 2010 and

October 2014; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016.

Temple University received $13 million in USAID grants and Democracy Fund support between 1999 and 2009 for

its Master of Laws degree program in Beijing. Goldie Blumenstyk, “In China, Thinking Like an American Lawyer,”

The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 2009.

See CRS Report R43781, The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002: Background and Implementation, op. cit. See also the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), Division K, §7043(f)(2)(B): “Funds appropriated by this Act

under the heading “Economic Support Fund” shall be made available for programs to promote and preserve Tibetan

culture, development, and the resilience of Tibetan communities in India and Nepal, and to assist in the education and

development of the next generation of Tibetan leaders from such communities.... ”

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

National Endowment for Democracy

Established in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation “dedicated to

the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.” 32 Funded primarily by an annual

congressional appropriation, NED has played an active role in promoting democracy and human rights in China since

the mid-1980s. A grant-making institution, the Endowment has supported projects carried out by grantees that

include its core institutes;33 Chinese, Tibetan, and Uyghur human rights and democracy groups based in the United

States and Hong Kong; and a small number of NGOs based in mainland China. NED grants for China and Tibetan

programs averaged roughly $6.7 million per year between 2007 and 2013. Funding for China programs totaled

approximately $6.6 million and $6.0 million in 2014 and 2015, respectively, and $616,700 and $731,000 for Tibetan

programs in 2014 and 2015, respectively. This support was provided using NED’s regular congressional

appropriations (an estimated $135 million in FY2015), apart from some additional congressionally directed funding.34

Program areas include the following: rule of law; public interest law; civil society; prisoners of conscience; rights

defenders; freedom of expression; Internet freedom; religious freedom; government accountability and transparency;

political participation; labor rights; promoting understanding of Tibetan, Uyghur and other ethnic concerns in China;

public policy analysis and debate; and rural land rights.

U.S.-funded programs have continued despite an increasingly restrictive political environment for

NGOs in Tibetan areas. Between 2002 and 2015, approximately $70 million in U.S. assistance

was appropriated for these purposes, including an estimated $7.9 million in FY2015. In most

years, the congressional appropriation for Tibetan programs exceeded the State Department’s

budget request. In addition, the National Endowment for Democracy has supported programs in

Tibetan areas through its annual congressional appropriation. As funding for U.S. assistance

activities in China overall has declined in recent years, assistance for Tibetan programs as a

proportion of total U.S. foreign assistance to China has increased. Foreign operations

appropriations legislation stipulates that assistance for Tibetan communities be allocated only to

nongovernmental organizations and support projects funded by international financial institutions

as long as they do not promote the migration and settlement of or transfer of land ownership to

non-Tibetans.35

Economic Opportunity and Private Sector Competitiveness

USAID activities in Tibetan areas of China aim to strengthen the capacity of Tibetan

communities, local organizations, and artisans to develop sustainable livelihoods. Assistance

efforts aim to support agricultural and other income-generating activities; help strengthen small

enterprises, business associations, and herder cooperatives; and improve access to markets.

Educational programs include training in vocational, marketing, and management skills and

scholarships for secondary education. ESF account funds also support health and hygiene

awareness programs and services.36

http://www.ned.org/about.

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).

Congress provided directed funding out of the Democracy Fund to NED for programs in China between 2001 and

2007 and Tibetan areas between 2004 and 2009. Such funding supplemented resources available for China through

NED’s regular budget.

See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), Division K, §7043(f)(1) and §7043(f)(2)(A).

See “Tailoring Jobs Help Preserve Tibetan Culture.” https://www.usaid.gov/results-data/success-stories/tailoringjobs-help-preserve-tibetan-culture.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Cultural Preservation

USAID programs in Tibetan areas include the following cultural preservation efforts: promoting

Tibetan language instruction; preserving culture, heritage, and art; and restoring historical sites

and buildings. Cultural preservation areas include literature, scriptures, painting, music, dance,

and oral traditions. USAID strives to involve women in community activities aimed at increasing

awareness of Tibetan culture. U.S. government and private funding support a Tibetan-language

online digital library and network.37

The Environment

Through partnerships with Tibetan communities, U.S. support seeks to protect the environment

through conservation, sustainable natural resource management, and the development of

renewable energy alternatives. USAID programs aim to improve rangeland management and

grassland rehabilitation, reduce deforestation, and protect wetlands. Other efforts include raising

awareness about, conducting research on, mitigating the impacts of, and developing responses to

climate change.38

U.S. NGOs in Tibet

In recent years, the primary grantees or implementing partners for USAID programs in the Tibet

Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan communities elsewhere in China have been the Bridge

Fund (TBF), Winrock International, and the Poverty Alleviation Fund (TPAF). Unrest in Tibetan

areas and government crackdowns on Tibetan religious and social activities have created a

difficult environment for international NGOs in Tibetan areas, and their numbers reportedly have

declined in recent years. The Bridge Fund has worked in the TAR and Tibetan communities

outside the TAR since 1996. TBF implemented a five-year (2009-2014), $10 million USAID

program in Tibetan communities aimed at preserving cultural heritage and promoting sustainable

economic development and environmental conservation. Winrock International’s five-year (20092014) TSERING (Tibetan Sustainable Environmental Resources for Increased Economic Growth)

program operated in the TAR and Tibetan communities in four PRC provinces. Project areas

included job skills training; income-generating activities that are compatible with traditional

lifestyles; environmentally sustainable small businesses; and digital technology to document,

preserve, and transmit cultural practices and knowledge. The Poverty Alleviation Fund (formerly

the Tibet Poverty Alleviation Fund) has been working in Tibet since 1997. TPAF’s programs in

Tibetan communities in Yunnan Province have included microfinance, promoting local

handicrafts, small enterprise development, agriculture and livestock, employable skills

development, eco-tourism, and training in health, nutrition, and hygiene.

Global Health Programs (Global Health Programs Account)

Since 2007, the United States government, through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), has worked with U.S. NGOs to help address HIV/AIDS in regions of high

incidence in China. U.S. assistance has focused on improving the capacity of governmental and

nongovernmental efforts in prevention, care, and treatment programs as well as supporting

programs for orphans and vulnerable children. Recipients of direct and indirect U.S. assistance

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library, http://www.thlib.org/.

See “Tibetan Herders Revive Land Damaged by Climate Change,” https://www.usaid.gov/results-data/successstories/little-seeds-plant-big-deeds-china.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

also have included Chinese NGOs, community-based groups, government-sponsored social

organizations, provincial health bureaus, and clinics. USAID has collaborated with, but not

provided direct assistance to, the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. public

health efforts in China include responses to public health threats, such as outbreaks of influenza

strains that experts believe have a potential of spreading globally, such as avian flu H7N9.39

Criminal Law and Procedure (International Narcotics Control and

Law Enforcement Account)

Since 2002, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account funding has

supported a Resident Legal Advisor (RLA), based in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, to offer

expertise on U.S. criminal law and procedure to PRC government officials, jurists, and

academics, and to “promote long-term criminal justice reform in China.” Most of the RLA’s

activities are conducted by the RLA alone or in cooperation with nongovernmental organizations.

The RLA engages Chinese courts, prosecutors, legal scholars, and bar associations. Reform areas

include pre-trial detention, coerced confessions, the rights of defense lawyers, and judicial

independence. Although many problems remain, the State Department reported that the Chinese

government has implemented some reforms in these and other areas.40

Rule of Law and Environmental Programs (Development

Assistance and Economic Support Fund Accounts)

Between 2006 and 2011, Congress allocated Development Assistance (DA) account funds for rule

of law and environmental efforts in China. Programs facilitated U.S. engagement with PRC bar

associations; provided Chinese students with legal training; and strove to enhance the capacity of

Chinese law colleges and judicial institutions, develop citizen awareness of the legal system, and

strengthen laws that safeguard civil and women’s rights.41 USAID’s criminal justice efforts

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.42 Administrative law programs promoted transparency and public participation in

government. Other rule of law activities included expanding legal clinics and public defenders’

offices and training PRC judicial officials on consumer protection and intellectual property.43

U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, Fiscal Year 2016.

Ibid.

U.S. educational institutions participating in these programs included American University Washington College of

Law, the University of Massachusetts, the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and Western Kentucky

University. PRC partner universities included China University of Political Science and Law, South China University

of Technology, and Zhejiang Gongshang University.

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.

USAID, Congressional Notification #147, August 14, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

USAID administered several environmental programs in China during the same period, using DA

account funds as well as private financing. The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law

helped to train environmental law professionals, advance reform in China’s environmental law,

and build capacity in environmental governance.44 The U.S.-based Institute for Sustainable

Communities and World Resources Institute

implemented the Guangdong Environmental

U.S. Assistance Acronyms

Partnership and the U.S.-China Partnership for

DA: Development Assistance

Climate Action, which promoted energy

DF: Democracy Fund

efficiency, low greenhouse gas emissions, and

DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

health and safety policies in factories and

ESF: Economic Support Fund

power plants. Both programs received support

GHP: Global Health Programs

from USAID, U.S. private corporations, U.S.

INCLE: International Narcotics Control and Law

and Chinese research institutions, and PRC

Enforcement

communities and government agencies.

USAID provided a grant to the Thailand-based NED: National Endowment for Democracy

NGO: Nongovernmental Organization

Freeland Foundation for countering the

trafficking of wildlife in China and elsewhere

in Asia. Other USAID environmental efforts in China 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.45

In 2012, Congress phased out Development Assistance for USAID rule of law programs in China,

although DRL programs continued. Congress also withdrew support for environmental programs

in China, with the exception of those in Tibetan areas. Some rule of law and environmental

programs have continued through the ESF account, however, albeit at decreased levels of

funding.

In FY2015, Economic Support Funds ($1 million) supported programs that aim to promote

respect for basic human rights, the rule of law, development of civil society, and citizen

participation in the public sphere. Program activities included strengthening legal rights

protections; supporting public interest law; developing the legal profession; bolstering criminal

defense systems; and increasing access to justice for underserved and vulnerable populations.

Environmental programs using ESF funds ($2.5 million) focused on reducing greenhouse gas

emissions in selected urban areas through technical assistance and the involvement of civil

society.46 For FY2016, Congress made available $15 million in ESF for democracy, rule of law,

civil society, and environmental programs in China.

Internet Freedom

For over a decade, the United States government has sought to promote global Internet freedom,

particularly in China and Iran. In 2006, the Bush Administration established the Global Internet

Freedom Task Force, which was renamed the NetFreedom Task Force under the Obama

Administration. Between 2008 and 2012, Congress appropriated approximately $95 million for

State Department and USAID global Internet freedom efforts. The Administration reportedly

Jointly administered by Vermont Law School and Sun Yat-sen University.

U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, “China: U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance

Publication, Fiscal Year, 2009.”

Information provided by USAID, November 2015.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

awarded $25 million and $18 million in 2013 and 2014, respectively, to groups working to

advance Internet freedom in the following areas: web and mobile counter-censorship and secure

communications technology; training in secure online and mobile communications practices; and

policy and advocacy efforts and research.

Congressional Research Service

Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and Funding in China, FY2000-FY2016

(thousands of current U.S. dollars)

Account

(Program)

2000-05

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

est.

2016

est.

GHP

6,750

6,960

7,308

7,000

5,000

3,000

2,977

1,500

DA (rule of

law,

environment)

4,950

5,000

9,919

11,000

12,000

7,000

ESF (rule of

law,

environment)

3,000

3,092

3,000

3,500

15,000

ESF/DF

(democracy

programs)a

58,000

20,000

15,000

17,000

11,000

10,000

n/a

ESF (Tibet)

8192

3,960

4,960

7,300

7,400

5,000

7,500

7,032

7,000

7,900

8,000

600

800

823

800

825

800

Peace Corpsb

7,608

1,683

1,748

1,980

2,057

2,718

2,900

3,000

3,200

2,500

4,100

5,200

Totals

15,292

30,593

37,458

38,819

45,265

46,918

37,000

28,300

27,124

24,800

27,825

—

INCLE

(criminal

justice)

Sources: U.S. Department of State Congressional Budget Justifications for foreign operations; congressional foreign operations appropriations legislation.

a. Administered by the Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

b. The Peace Corps has been involved in teaching English language and environmental awareness in China since 1993. See also Peace Corps Congressional Budget

Justification, Fiscal Year 2016.

CRS-13

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Table 2. U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations for China: Legislative History

(FY2000-FY2016)

Fiscal

Year

Legislation

Provisions

2000

P.L. 106-113

Provided $1 million from the ESF account to nongovernmental organizations based

outside China to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote

sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in

China, as well as $1 million to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human

Rights to support research about China; made available unspecified ESF account funds

to NGOs located outside China that have as their primary purpose fostering

democracy in the PRC, and for activities of NGOs located outside China to foster

democracy in the PRC.

2001

P.L. 106-429

Made available up to $2 million in ESF funds to NGOs located outside the PRC to

support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable

development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in China;

amended Section 526 of P.L. 106-113 to strike “Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center

for Human Rights” and insert “Jamestown Foundation”; made available unspecified ESF

account funds to NGOs located outside China that have as their primary purpose

fostering democracy in the PRC, for activities of NGOs located outside China to foster

the rule of law and democracy in the PRC, and to the National Endowment for

Democracy (NED) or its grantees to foster democracy in China.

2002

P.L. 107-115

Provided $10 million (ESF) for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the

rule of law in China, of which up to $3 million may be made available for NGOs located

outside the PRC to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote

sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in

Tibet.

2003

P.L. 108-7

Provided $15 million (ESF) for programs related to democracy, human rights, and the

rule of law in China and Hong Kong, of which up to $3 million may be made available to

support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable

development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan

Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in China, and not less than $3

million shall be made available to the National Endowment for Democracy for

programs in China; continued the requirement that assistance for Tibetan communities

be granted to NGOs, but lifted the stipulation that the NGOs be located outside

China; made available ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and

legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the

U.S. government.a

2004

P.L. 108-199

Provided $13.5 million (ESF) for activities to support democracy, human rights, and the

rule of law in China and Hong Kong, including $3 million to NED; provided $4 million

in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and

promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan

communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in

China; made available ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and

legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the

U.S. government.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Fiscal

Year

Legislation

Provisions

2005

P.L. 108-447

Provided $19 million (ESF) for programs in China and Hong Kong that support

democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, including $4 million to NED; provided $4

million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and

promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in Tibetan

communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in

China, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy programs related to

Tibet; made available ESF funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and

legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are matched from sources other than the

U.S. government; made available Development Assistance account funds to American

educational institutions to conduct programs and activities in China related to the

environment, democracy, and the rule of law.

2006

P.L. 109-102

H.Rept. 109265

Provided $20 million out of the Democracy Fund (DF) for democracy-related programs

in China and Hong Kong, including $3 million to NED; provided $4 million in ESF funds

to NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable

development and environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan

Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to NED

for human rights and democracy programs related to Tibet; made available DF account

funds for Taiwan for the purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, to the extent

that such funds are matched from sources other than the U.S. government; provided $5

million in Development Assistance account funds to American educational institutions

for environmental, democracy, and rule of law 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 (DF) for democracy and rule of law programs in China and Hong

Kong; provided $5 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that preserve

cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental

conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other

Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to NED for human rights and democracy

programs related to Tibet; made available DF account funds for Taiwan for the

purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, to the extent that such funds are

matched from sources other than the U.S. government; provided $10 million in

Development Assistance account funds to U.S. educational institutions and NGOs for

environmental, democracy, and rule of law programs in the PRC.

2009

P.L. 111-8

Provided $17 million (DF) for the promotion of democracy in China, Hong Kong, and

Taiwan; any assistance to Taiwan is to be matched from sources other than the U.S.

government; provided $7.3 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that

preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental

conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other

Tibetan communities in China, and $250,000 to NED for programs in Tibetan

communities; provided $11 million in Development Assistance account funds to U.S.

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

H.Rept. 111366

Provided $17 million (DF) for the promotion of democracy in China, Hong Kong, and

Taiwan; any assistance to Taiwan is to be matched from sources other than the U.S.

government; provided $7.4 million in ESF funds to NGOs to support activities that

preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental

conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other

Tibetan communities in China; provided $12 million in Development Assistance

account funds to U.S. educational institutions and NGOs for programs and activities in

the PRC related to the environment, governance, and the rule of law.

2011

P.L. 112-10

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.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Fiscal

Year

Legislation

Provisions

2012

P.L. 112-74

H.Rept. 112331

S.Rept. 112-85

The conferees recommended $12 million from the ESF account to U.S. institutions of

higher education and NGOs for democracy, governance, rule of law, and environmental

programs in the PRC; approved $7.5 million in ESF funds to NGOs for activities that

preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental

conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other

Tibetan communities in China.b

2013

P.L. 113-6

Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, most

Department of State foreign operations accounts continued at the same levels as

FY2012.

2014

P.L. 113-76,

Division K

Explanatory

Statement,

Division K

Provided $15 million in ESF funds for U.S. institutions of higher education and NGOs

for programs and activities related to democracy, rule of law, and the environment in

China; provided $7.9 million to NGOs to support activities that preserve cultural

traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation in

Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan

communities in China.

2015

P.L. 113-235,

Division J

Explanatory

Statement,

Division J

Provided $15 million in ESF funds for democracy, rule of law, and environmental

programs in China, and $7.9 million to NGOs to support activities that preserve

cultural traditions and promote sustainable development, education, and environmental

conservation in Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other

Tibetan communities in China.c

2016

P.L. 114-113,

Division K

Statement of

Conferees,

Division K

Provided $15 million in ESF funds for democracy, civic advocacy, rule of law, and

environmental programs in China; made available $8 million in ESF account funds to

nongovernmental organizations to support activities that preserve cultural traditions

and promote sustainable development, education, and environmental conservation in

Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan

communities in China.d

Source: Annual State Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations legislation.

Notes: Not all directed appropriations for China were obligated fully or obligated during the year in which they

were allocated.

a. The U.S. government provided $450,000 and $922,000 in FY2006 and FY2010, respectively, for programs to

strengthen Hong Kong political parties. Since 2003, U.S. funds also were made available to Taiwan for the

purposes of furthering political and legal reforms, if matching funds were provided. To date, Taiwan has not

received U.S. assistance for such purposes.

b. The conference report (H.Rept. 112-331) stated that programs in the PRC “should support training for

citizens, lawyers, and businesses on key issues, including criminal justice, occupational safety, and

environmental protection.”

c. Of the $15 million in ESF funds provided for democracy programs, $3.5 million was spent in FY2015.

d. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235), §7032(f) stated that

foreign operations appropriations for a “business and human rights program” in the People’s Republic of

China shall be made available on a cost-matching basis from sources other than the United States

government. This stipulation continued in 2016. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114113), Division K, §7043(e)(4).

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Assistance Programs in China

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Asian Affairs

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.