    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN A
                               CHALLENGING WORLD

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 14, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-142

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

                          or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    30-423PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              NORMA J. TORRES, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
        Wisconsin                        ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 TED LIEU, California
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Carl Gershman, president, National Endowment for Democracy...     5
    Mr. Daniel Twining, president, International Republican Institute    12
    Mr. Kenneth Wollack, president, National Democratic Institute....    23

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Carl Gershman: Prepared statement............................     8
    Mr. Daniel Twining: Prepared statement...........................    15
    Mr. Kenneth Wollack: Prepared statement..........................    26

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    78
    Hearing minutes..................................................    79
    The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of New York: Statement from the Democracy in Europe
      Working Group..................................................    81
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    88
    Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for
      the record by:
      The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of New Jersey........................    90
      The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
        the State of California......................................   111
      The Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Missouri............................................   112
      The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the
        State of Nevada..............................................   115

                           DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN A
                               CHALLENGING WORLD

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order.
        There is no doubt democracy is on the ropes. Freedom House
    reports that democracy has declined worldwide over the last
    decade.
        The question for us is do we care? And if so, what should
    we do about it?
        We better care. Democracy's expansion brought unprecedented
    prosperity. America is more secure when fewer nations are
    authoritarian, which is the unfortunate alternative to
    democracy.
        Strongmen regimes justify their repression at home by
    creating enemies abroad. Since the freedom we enjoy is a threat
    to authoritarian regimes, the U.S. and our allies are natural
    targets of their aggression.
        We have seen this with Russia and China and North Korea,
    and I'd rather trade and do business with a democracy than with
    a regime.
        Democracy is morally just. Members of this committee have
    spent countless hours holding hearings, protesting, and
    fighting injustice abroad. Human rights are far better
    protected in democratic countries, ones without dank prison
    cells full of political prisoners.
        Democracy is more than just elections. Democracy without
    the foundation of rule of law or individual liberties, a free
    press, and a culture of tolerance is dangerous populism or mob
    rule.
        We've seen that in Burma, South Sudan, Gaza, and too many
    other places. Democratic values are universal. Of course, each
    country will develop democracy in different ways and at a
    different pace, and we may have differences over how best to
    promote democracy in various countries, especially given our
    strategic interests.
        But we should always remember that, as Ronald Reagan noted
    in his 1982 Westminster speech, free elections are enshrined in
    the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
        At home, we must maintain the decades-old bipartisan
    consensus that democracy is a core element of U.S. foreign
    policy.
        That is why it is important to have the National Endowment
    for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and the
    National Democratic Institute here today, and that is why it's
    important that Congress continues to adequately fund these
    institutions.
        Promoting democracy is not easy. There are many stresses,
    including destabilizing mass refugee flows and accelerating
    economic change.
        Mistakes have been made, but lessons have been learned.
    These include the need to promote women in building and
    supporting democracy.
        Compounding the challenge, authoritarian regimes such as
    Russia and China are aggressively attacking democracies across
    the globe, including attacking our own democracy.
        As one witness will note, these attacks are broad,
    political, economic, and they are cultural. Beijing is spending
    billions, using the technology revolution to surveille its
    citizens at home while spreading propaganda abroad.
        I have seen Moscow's assault on its neighbors firsthand. We
    better wake up to this threat. Now.
        For years, our great Nation has inspired countless
    individuals to seek freedom in their homelands. Some have been
    tortured, murdered for their democratic commitment.
        Many have succeeded. Our wonderful legacy of leadership on
    this issue has given us power and influence. We must protect
    and nurture our own democracy for that to continue.
        And I will momentarily turn to our ranking member, Mr.
    Eliot Engel from New York, for his opening statement here this
    morning as well.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses,
    welcome. I want to especially thank Ken Wollack for 35 years of
    service. Congratulations on your retirement in September.
        Your organizations do incredible work promoting democracy
    around the world, making governments more accountable and
    responsive and shining the light on abuses and corruption.
        It's such important work because around the world
    democracy, unfortunately, is backsliding. According to the
    Freedom in the World report, democracy and global freedom has
    declined around the world for 12 straight years.
        In Africa, while we have seen a slight opening of political
    systems, in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Gambia, and elsewhere, in
    Burundi, Rwanda, and the Republic of the Congo, the new normal
    has become constitutional coups, which is term limited
    incumbents changing the rules so they can stay in power.
        When I was in Africa with the chairman we tried to speak to
    the leadership about this but, of course, they wouldn't speak
    with us because they knew what we were going to say.
        Tanzania and Zambia show warning signs of creeping
    authoritarianism, and more and more governments are shutting
    down the internet to stifle dissent and buy time to tamper with
    election results.
        In the Middle East, Tunisia's progress has been inspiring
    and we should help improve the climate for foreign investment
    there. But it's another story in Egypt, where draconian laws
    have limited the ability of civil society to operate.
        And I am a friend of Egypt, so it really pains me when I
    say this. The recent elections in Iraq are overshadowed by
    reports of fraud, which should be cleared up by full recounts
    before forming a new government.
        Across Europe, democratic practices have steadily eroded.
    Turkey's President, Erdogan, has consolidated power and cracked
    down on dissent. It's just really disgraceful what's going on
    in Turkey.
        In Hungary, refugees and migrants face hostility from the
    higher levels of government. In Poland, free speech and an
    independent judiciary are under attack.
        Now, much of this is driven by Russia, a fake democracy,
    whose leader, Vladimir Putin, seeks to undermine Western unity
    and discredit democratic institutions.
        Since 2014, in Asia, there has been a military coup in
    Thailand, a populist leader elected in the Philippines, who
    shoots people on sight because the thinks they are involved
    with drugs, ethnic cleansing in Burma at the hands of the
    military--very disappointing.
        Cambodia's prime minister of 33 years has neutralized
    political opposition and China grows more aggressive in
    oppressing its own citizens, quietly promoting its
    authoritarian model around the world as an alternative to
    Western democratic values and chipping away at international
    norms.
        Here in our neighborhood in our hemisphere, Nicholas Maduro
    has turned Venezuela into a full-blown dictatorship with sham
    elections, political prisoners, and a denial of the country's
    humanitarian crisis.
        Taken together, these cases and others become a problem for
    our national security. The United States wants to see vibrant
    democracies around the world, countries that share our values
    and priorities.
        Strong democracies make strong partners. When we
    collaborate with like-minded governments, we are better able to
    meet challenges, project stability, and drive prosperity.
        On the other hand, the greatest threats we face come from
    places where governments are closed off, where human rights
    aren't a priority, where ordinary citizens have less of a say
    in choosing their leaders.
        These are the places where vulnerable people are exploited
    and extremism is able to take root. So promoting democracy,
    helping to advance our democratic values around the world--the
    work that your three organizations do--as I say to the
    witnesses--should be at the center of our foreign policy.
        As I often say, it's the right thing to do because
    democracy helps people live fuller freer lives and it's also
    the smart thing to do because democracy is good for our
    security.
        That's why it's baffling that the administration has
    decided that democracy is no longer a foreign policy priority.
    The budgets the administration has sent us seek to slash
    investments in diplomacy and development by a third.
        So many of the efforts we make around the world to
    strengthen democracy would be hobbled if Congress went along
    with these draconian cuts.
        Thankfully, Congress did not. In Nicaragua, for example,
    140 people have been killed in the last 2 months, primarily at
    the hands of President Ortega's thugs.
        The White House request for democracy assistance in
    Nicaragua for next year, zero. The three organizations
    represented today all rely on Federal grants to carry out their
    important work. Not if the administration gets its way.
        The State Department even removed democracy from its
    mission statement. What does that say about American values and
    American leadership?
        And on issues like this, leadership starts at the top.
    Democracy isn't just under attack in distant places. The
    Economist's Democracy Index recently downgraded the United
    States to flawed democracy as opposed to a full democracy.
        Just yesterday, the President tweeted, ``Our country's
    biggest enemy is the fake news so easily promulgated by
    fools.''
        Attacking the free press, the way I see it, is an attack on
    democracy. It's an attack on a fundamental right in this
    country.
        Our President has spoken glowingly of Vladimir Putin,
    Saddam Hussein, Erdogan, Duterte in the Philippines, Xi in
    China, and, of course, in Singapore, he had nothing but kind
    words for Kim Jong-un, a brutal dictator, a murderer, who rules
    over the most oppressive system in the world, all while
    attacking America's closest friends like Canada.
        So the world looks to us to set an example, to show
    leadership, to advance our interests in a way that respects the
    dignity and rights of all people, and right now, I don't
    believe we are sending the right message.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how
    we can get back on track and revitalize democracy as part of
    our foreign policy.
        I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
        This morning, I am pleased to welcome our distinguished
    guests here on the panel, including Mr. Carl Gershman, who has
    served as president of the National Endowment for Democracy
    since its founding in 1984.
        He's a long-time friend of this committee. He's respected
    worldwide for his work, especially in his efforts to help
    peaceably end the Cold War and transition countries from behind
    the Iron Curtain to democracy, and he's done this through
    nongovernmental action.
        Before his time at NED, he was the senior counselor to the
    United States representative to the United Nations, where he
    worked on international human rights issues.
        Mr. Daniel Twining is the president of the International
    Republican Institute and previously he served as the counselor
    and director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of
    the United States. He also worked here in Congress as a foreign
    policy advisor to Senator John McCain.
        And we have Mr. Kenneth Wollack. He is president of the
    National Democratic Institute, and he has co-edited the Middle
    East Policy Survey and written regularly on foreign affairs for
    the Los Angeles times.
        We wish him well on his retirement, but we are going to
    miss his active expertise on so many issues.
        We appreciate all of you being here today, especially given
    the contributions the three of you have made, and without
    objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements will be made
    part of the record.
        Members here will have 5 legislative, or calendar, days to
    submit statements and questions and extraneous material for the
    record.
        So if you would, Mr. Gershman, please summarize your
    remarks and after we hear from the panel we will go to our
    questions.

     STATEMENT OF MR. CARL GERSHMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
                             FOR DEMOCRACY

        Mr. Gershman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your long leadership and for your commitment to the cause of
    democracy throughout the world. We deeply appreciate it.
        I agree with you that democracy is on the ropes. Freedom
    House data and so forth, resurgent authoritarianism, democratic
    backsliding in many countries, the sharp power phenomenon that
    we have called attention to.
        But I want to devote myself this morning, if I may, to a
    more positive narrative, to take a look at something that I
    would call democratic resilience and also authoritarian
    vulnerability, and then what we can do practically to help,
    because I think it would be a mistake to assume that the
    decline of a democracy is inevitable or irreversible.
        I'd call your attention, for example, to some recent
    events, among them the remarkable democratic transition in
    Gambia; the fall of the corrupt Zuma government in South
    Africa; the stunning victory of democracy in Malaysia, and the
    freeing of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim; the equally
    stunning triumph of democracy in Armenia; and the successful
    local elections in Tunisia that are, in my view, a decisive
    step forward in the Arab world's first democracy.
        These are just a few of the examples that I could give of
    recent democratic advances. There is Slovakia, interesting
    developments in Ethiopia. Even in a country like Uzbekistan we
    can see some glimmerings of some opening.
        They show that we should never underestimate the desire of
    ordinary people for freedom and dignity or the extent of the
    anger at corrupt and unresponsive government officials.
        On the question of authoritarian vulnerability, the Islamic
    Republic of Iran, for example, is a failed system, in my view,
    which was shown by the protests that swept over the country
    less than 6 months ago and that will certainly recur.
        The Bolivarian dictatorship in Venezuela and the Ortega
    regime in Nicaragua are also, in my view, failed systems, not
    to mention the Cuban and North Korean dictatorships as well as
    the stagnant Russian kleptocracy.
        China is projecting its military and economic power and
    threatening to spread its model of the totalitarian
    surveillance state.
        But while Xi's regime may claim performance legitimacy
    because of its economic growth, it lacks political legitimacy.
    Why must Xi prohibit what he calls historical nihilism, meaning
    any discussion of the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Maoist
    disaster like the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap
    Forward?
        Why has it been necessary to eliminate a political
    dissident like Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, to arrest hundreds of
    human rights lawyers, suppress the Christian house church
    movement in China and expunge the cultural and religious
    identity of Tibetan and Uighur minorities?
        By stoking nationalism to fill the void left by the death
    of Communist ideology, the regime just exposes its failure to
    develop values with broad appeal.
        Why, therefore, should we assume that the so-called China
    model will not also end up as Reagan said in that Westminster
    address ``on the ash heap of history?''
        We must not underestimate the immense challenge of building
    and consolidating stable democracies, and Congressman Engel
    referred to that.
        Democracy is hard work, especially in countries that are
    poor and that have experienced violent conflict, and it takes
    time and a great deal of effort.
        That means helping the people who share our democratic
    values and who want to build free societies governed by the
    rule of law is something we have to do.
        And so it is in that spirit that the NED and its institutes
    helps the kind of activists we honored last night, Mr.
    Chairman, and thank you for speaking at our event last night
    with the NED's Democracy Awardees who are fighting to rescue
    the people of North Korea from enslavement and it's remarkable
    work that they do and which we are supporting.
        It's why we have supported people like Cynthia Gabriel, one
    of the recipients of last year's Democracy Award, who led the
    effort to expose the massive corruption associated with the
    1MDB scandal in Malaysia--Raphael Marques, another award
    recipient last year, who has led the fight against equally
    massive corruption in Angola and who is now on trial for
    allegedly insulting corrupt officials.
        Other examples include the support that NED has given in
    Ukraine to the Anti-Corruption Action Center that has
    tirelessly led the campaign for the establishment of an
    independent anti-corruption court, and I am pleased to report
    that just last week the Ukrainian Parliament at long last
    approved legislation to create such a court.
        Another important victory just occurred in Afghanistan
    where a daily newspaper that we support published an
    investigative report on the illegal issuance of diplomatic
    passports to Afghan strongmen and the government immediately
    cancelled over 4,000 such passports in Afghanistan.
        The last example is the nonpartisan training conducted by
    four NGOs in Tunisia of new candidates who participated in last
    month's local elections. Of the 235 individuals who were
    trained, 112 won seats and 25 were at the heads of their
    electoral lists.
        These elections have made democracy in Tunisia more
    inclusive and responsive, dealing a blow to ISIS, which has
    been able to recruit young people in Tunisia who are frustrated
    over the failure of the revolution to produce meaningful social
    and economic change.
        Mr. Chairman, I could go on and give many other examples of
    dedicated NED grantees whose work is advancing American values
    and security around the world.
        Our job is to empower such brave people and to let them
    know that they are not alone because they have the support of
    the American people and the American Congress, of course.
        This, I believe, is what Reagan meant when he said at
    Westminster that as important as military strength is, and I
    quote,

            ``The ultimate determinant in the struggle that is now
            going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but
            a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual
            resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish,
            and the ideals to which we are dedicated.''

        We can win this test of wills and ideas if we have the
    spiritual resolve to fight and to stand with the people and
    support people around the world who are struggling to build
    democratic societies.
        If we do this, we will make the world a safer and more
    peaceful place and the values upon which this Nation is founded
    will be strengthened as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gershman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Carl, for that testimony today.
    Thank you.
        Dan Twining. Say, Dan, turn that up or hit the button.
    There we go.

       STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL TWINING, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
                          REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE

        Mr. Twining. Got it. Got it.
        Thank you to all of you, the chairman and the ranking
    member, so many of you and so many in this body, for
    representing not only our country's interest out in the world
    but the values that reinforce those interests, and I would like
    to argue that those aren't separate things but one and the
    same.
        Last month, IRI honored Jim Mattis and Nikki Haley at our
    annual Freedom Dinner. We appreciated Chairman Royce's
    participation, and other members of this committee.
        Secretary Mattis shared an observation that speaks to the
    heart of why America supports democracy in the world. Here's
    what he said:

            ``I have many privileged glimpses into the human
            condition, but I've never once seen human beings flee
            the freedom of speech. I never saw families on the run
            from the free practice of religion in the public square
            and, as a young Marine, I never picked anyone out of a
            life raft on the ocean, desperate to escape a free
            press.''

        By nurturing democracies abroad, by sharing best practices
    in responsive inclusive and just governance, IRI prepares the
    soil for that flourishing.
        Now, Secretary Mattis is no one's idea of a starry-eyed
    idealist. His military experience led him to the conclusion
    that American power derives not just from our martial prowess
    but from our democratic ideals. Dictators and extremists who
    deprive their people of basic rights inevitably create problems
    that endanger our security at home.
        I would like to focus on the role of democracy assistance
    in managing four key threats to American security--violent
    extremism, uncontrolled mass migration, the Kremlin's hybrid
    warfare, and Chinese sharp power.
        The first challenge is countering violent extremism. As the
    national security strategy points out, violent extremists
    groups ``thrive under conditions of state weakness and prey on
    the vulnerable, as they accelerate the breakdown of rules to
    create havens from which to plan and launch attacks on the
    United States,'' and we can't simply fight our way out of this
    problem.
        Democracy assistance is a vital tool on the preventative
    side, helping create conditions in which populations vulnerable
    to recruitment by extremists have peaceful outlets to express
    grievances and hold a stake in their societies.
        We at IRI carry out this work around the world from Nigeria
    to Indonesia to Bosnia. Our approach builds on public opinion
    research, leverages relations with political and civic actors.
        We really work to build local community resilience by
    directly engaging with vulnerable populations, particularly
    youth.
        The second challenge is uncontrolled mass migration. I am
    afraid we are living through the biggest refugee crisis since
    World War II. Conflicts in the Middle East are destabilizing
    not only that region but our core allies in Europe.
        Lawlessness in Latin America and Venezuela and Central
    America is producing migration, fuelling transnational crime,
    including human trafficking and the drug trade, with desperate
    populations fleeing the breakdown of law and order in search of
    a decent life elsewhere.
        The fallout from uncontrolled mass migration for U.S.
    interests is enormous. I don't need to tell you. To address the
    drivers of this migration that so often washes up on American
    shores, IRI works with local and national governments as well
    as civic groups in Central America to strengthen the
    institutions that deliver citizens security so that people are
    less likely to flee their countries and more likely to build
    successful societies there at home in their own countries.
        The third challenge is the Kremlin's hybrid warfare. Russia
    and China are looking to export their authoritarian models to
    undermine U.S. leadership and alliances.
        In Europe, the Kremlin is deploying a sophisticated
    information warfare campaign to undermine democratic
    institutions, erode citizen trust in democracy and wedge apart
    the transatlantic alliance.
        This form of warfare is particularly insidious--this
    political warfare--because it uses core features of democracy
    against us--exploiting our free media, manipulating false
    information, undermining confidence in electoral systems.
        IRI's Beacon Project is engaged in a big line of work to
    leverage our relationships for European political parties and
    civil societies groups to track Russian misinformation
    including in many local languages and then to coordinate
    political responses to that.
        The fourth and final challenge is Chinese sharp power. The
    Chinese Communist Party uses sophisticated tactics to build
    political influence around the world. Their goal is to
    challenge and ultimately supplant America's global leadership.
        Their authoritarian political model and leveraging of vast
    economic resources pulls smaller countries into China's orbit.
    These activities contribute to political corruption and state
    capture by China, risk the creation of an expansive hostile
    sphere of influence that's inimical to American interests.
        Fragile democracies are most vulnerable. Helping U.S.
    partners build political resiliency to protect their own
    sovereignty, to stand on their own two feet, and not be
    captured by a foreign authoritarian power is a vital U.S.
    interest, I would argue, and our work works with many countries
    to help protect them to prevent China suborning their
    democracies.
        I would also just mention some other opportunities. Anti-
    corruption programs that level the playing field for U.S.
    business in the world, programs on youth and women's
    empowerment both speak to rising generations to include them in
    politics and, of course, to get greater female leadership in
    politics to stabilize and build peace.
        I would just close with the thought that we do face a
    really dangerous world. It's perhaps more complicated and
    dangerous than any time including during the Cold War.
        I think it can be tempting to take refuge in a believe that
    democracy promotion somehow is a luxury we can't afford. But
    democracy assistance is not about making ourselves feel good.
        It's not just about doing the right thing. It's a way of
    advancing American interests and American influence in a
    contested world.
        So thank you all for your continued support for this vital
    work.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Twining follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thanks, Dan.
        Ken.

         STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
                          DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE

        Mr. Wollack. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
    members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity on
    behalf of NDI to speak on democracy promotion efforts.
        Mr. Chairman, your leadership will be sorely missed, not
    only in the halls of Congress but in many countries,
    particularly in Africa where your voice and engagement has made
    a real difference.
        The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our
    moral preferences and our strategic interests is a false one.
    Our ultimate goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane,
    and safe, where the risk of war is minimal.
        Yet, the hot spots most likely to erupt in violence are
    often found in areas of the world that are nondemocratic--
    places defined by the Defense Department as the arc of
    instability.
        These are places that experience ethnic conflict and civil
    war, they generate refugee flows across borders, they are
    places where terrorists are harbored and illegal drugs are
    produced. And in this interdependent world, what happens within
    borders of nations have regional and sometimes global impact.
        The 2018 National Security Strategy, the National Defense
    Strategy, the Worldwide Threat Assessment by the U.S.
    intelligence community, all point to efforts by Russia and
    China to propagate their authoritarian models as a threat to
    our interests.
        A proper response calls for a democratic stimulus, not a
    retreat, and the best way to counter this new threat is not to
    confront it unilaterally but to build stronger global alliances
    that support an alternative model based on transparent and
    accountable government.
        We have witnessed more than a decade of democratic
    recession. Autocrats have become more aggressive and new
    fragile democracies are failing to deliver.
        Even more established democracies have been beset by
    political polarization and growing public discontent.
    Authoritarian regimes are using digital tools to advance their
    interests including electoral espionage and the dissemination
    of disinformation to skew electoral outcomes, disrupt
    democratic discourse, discredit institutions, and fuel ethnic
    and social divisions.
        NDI has responded by providing cybersecurity support,
    assisting efforts of civic, media, and political groups to
    detect, expose, and combat this information, and conducting new
    types of public opinion research to identify populations that
    are most susceptible to Russian disinformation and develop
    messages that can build resilience.
        In cooperation with IRI and NED, NDI is helping to launch a
    new effort with democracy groups, civil society organizations,
    civic tech partners, political parties, and a global network of
    4 million citizen election monitors to interact more regularly
    with the technology companies.
        Among other purposes, this Design for a Democracy Coalition
    will identify disinformation that subverts democratic processes
    so tech companies can find speedy resolutions.
        Now, despite recent declines in democracy, there is another
    more positive story. Public opinion polls in every region of
    the world show large majorities agree that democracy is the
    best political system.
        Democratic change and rising citizen demand for democracy
    in such diverse places as Ethiopia, Armenia, Malaysia,
    Slovakia, and Nicaragua are but a few examples in recent
    months.
        Some have argued that the Arab Spring unleashed a new era
    of instability in the Middle East by toppling repressive but
    so-called stable regimes.
        However, the idea that autocracy equals stability collapses
    under scrutiny as the remaining supposedly stable regimes are
    increasingly the locus of conflict.
        In contrast, those places that are going through democratic
    transition like Tunisia or political liberalization like
    Morocco and Jordan are better able to address economic
    challenges or threats from extremist ideologies and groups.
        I would like to highlight two democracy efforts in
    challenging environments--Ukraine and Syria--which is seemingly
    one of the most unlikely places on earth to find good news on
    this front.
        Ukraine faces severe economic problems and deeply-rooted
    corruption, not to mention occupation in the south and a war in
    the east.
        However, NDI's research shows that Ukrainians are virtually
    united in their view that democracy is the best guarantor of
    their independence and sovereignty.
        Ukrainians can point to concrete achievements in recent
    years. These include the emergence of new political parties
    that have national reach and are focused on citizens they
    represent rather than on oligarchs who would finance them.
        Brought together by NDI in partnership with the European
    Parliament, party factions in the Rada are overcoming deep
    fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it easier
    to build consensus around reforms.
        In NDI programs alone more than 45,000 citizens have
    engaged directly in the national reform process and are
    reaching more than 1.3 million citizens through the media.
        These are the kinds of bottom-up changes that, given time
    and continued support, can put down deep democratic roots.
        Another story of democratic resilience is unfolding in
    Syria. In northern Syria, citizen groups are prioritizing
    community needs and local administrative councils are
    responding by providing critical services.
        Fifty NDI governance advisors are working each day in 34
    locations to advise citizen groups and administrative councils
    and bringing them together to solve problems.
        Courageously, these groups and counsels have challenged
    extremist groups, which have sought to establish parallel
    governing structures.
        As one regional news outlet noted, ``You may think Syrians
    are condemned to an unpleasant choice between Bashar Assad and
    the jihadists. But the real choice being fought out by Syrians
    is between violent authoritarianism on the one hand and grass
    roots democracy on the other.''
        Mr. Chairman, the citizens of our country have held the
    conviction that to secure the blessings of liberty for
    ourselves and our country, we must establish government that
    derives legitimacy from the consent of the people.
        We received the help of others in our founding and have
    assisted those around the world who step forward, sometimes at
    great risk to their own countries and to their personal lives
    to promote, establish, and sustain democracy.
        Our Nation has benefited from the peace that global
    democracy produces and the economic opportunities that it
    creates.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]
      [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Wollack.
        I guess the dichotomy here is that your data that you're
    expressing shows that in terms of support for grass roots
    democracy worldwide that's on the upswing in terms of how
    people feel--what people want to see, and the Freedom House
    statistics then reflect the sales pitch of authoritarian
    regimes, in particular Moscow and Beijing and their efforts to
    convince other strong heads of state to move toward their
    model.
        So I will just ask you this. I've traveled throughout
    Europe and I've seen firsthand the very powerful impact that
    information can have as well--and I saw that in 1985 in East
    Germany with our broadcasts and how impactful or inspirational
    it was.
        But I've also seen that damaging power of disinformation
    that Russia is actively manipulating in order to sow chaos and
    in order to push an anti-Western agenda in those frontline
    European states and, frankly, to push it here.
        And so you're in these countries. How effective are our
    international broadcasting, which is something that Mr. Engel
    and I have been trying to reform--how effective is that in
    combatting Russia's disinformation campaigns abroad and are we
    coming near to neutralizing this threat or is this continuing
    to advance?
        And so, Carl, if I would have your observation.
        Mr. Gershman. When we published the Sharp Power Report in
    December, we were calling attention to this problem, and it's a
    growing problem.
        People are aware of it now, especially because of what
    Russia has been doing but also and especially because of China,
    and when the Economist magazine picked up the sharp power
    report they focused more on China, whose efforts are enormous
    in this area.
        And I think the importance of having that concept, Mr.
    Chairman, is that it helped people understand the nature of the
    problem. If we called it soft power they wouldn't understand--
    that they would think it was pretty much what we do.
        But if you call it sharp power, you understand that you
    have really undemocratic hostile powers who are using
    information to penetrate, to manipulate, to undermine, to
    control, and that's basically what we have.
        And radios are, obviously, one important instrument, not to
    counter that in terms of building a defense against
    disinformation but to project a positive message.
        But you've got to build a defense against it and a lot of
    the groups that we helped stop fake news in Ukraine and other
    groups like that are being able to identify fake information.
        We have a dialogue--a very ongoing dialogue with the
    internet companies to take down a lot of incitement, a lot of
    fake news.
        We are connecting our grantees with the internet companies.
    We have groups like Bellingcat, which is an investigative
    journalist group. They use open source information. But they've
    identified the Russian general who provided the missile that
    shot down the Malaysian airliner.
        You have got to fight back. You need a good defense but you
    need a good offense and we have to understand that we don't
    live in a world where everybody loves us or loves the values
    that we stand for.
        There are people who are against those values and we have
    developed the capacity within the framework, obviously, of our
    democratic values to defend those values and to fight back
    against the attacks upon us.
        Chairman Royce. And Ken, what else could we be doing?
        And I've got to tell you, in terms of one of the
    disappointing things across much of the world is watching
    Beijing also sell this concept that rather than democracy or
    independent courts or bolstering civil society you'd need a
    strong authoritarian model.
        Mr. Wollack. Let me say the Russian cyber warfare is quite
    different than the Soviet Union's propaganda. The Soviet Union
    propaganda was that our tractor is better than your tractor.
        Nobody believed it. And what makes the Russian efforts so
    effective is they're playing on fertile territory. They're
    reinforcing preconceived notions that people have about their
    own political institutions.
        So, first and foremost, the institutions of democratic
    governance, particularly in places like the Balkans and eastern
    Europe need to be shored up. There needs to be reform and
    modernization efforts and this is one of the most effective
    ways to respond to disinformation.
        Secondly, radio is extremely important. But this a daily
    fight on the ground.
        Chairman Royce. A social media fight?
        Mr. Wollack. Yes. To give you one example, the Democratic
    Party of Serbia, 2 weeks before the local elections, the
    Russians--presumably the Russians--had hacked their Facebook
    page, and put horrible content on it.
        The hackers then contacted Facebook, told them to look at
    the site. Facebook immediately took down the Facebook page.
        Now, the party didn't know who to contact. They had no
    contact with Facebook. They were able to contact us. Our office
    in Silicon Valley managed to reach the Facebook executives.
    They immediately took it down.
        But this is playing out dozens, hundreds, and thousands of
    time all over the world, and not just propagated by the
    Russians and the Chinese. It's propagated by authoritarian
    leaders all over the world. Hun Sen of Cambodia, Duterte--the
    majority of the news about them are generated by bots.
        So this is now a tool that everybody is using. Some of it
    external threats, some of it done internally by non-democratic
    forces.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ken.
        Eliot.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to all three
    of you again that I so much admire the good work that you do
    and the organizations you all represent.
        They are three outstanding organizations, and those of us
    who have been on this committee for many, many, many years are
    very aware of the fine work you do.
        So I want to reiterate that and thank all three of you.
        Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, I would like
    unanimous consent to enter into the record a document by the
    Democracy in Europe Working Group, signed by over 64 former
    administrations officials and Members of Congress, democracy
    experts, and human rights activists, which lays out growing
    concerns regarding democratic backsliding in Europe.
        Chairman Royce. Without objection.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to ask my first question involving something I said
    in my opening statement and I've been saying for the past year
    and a half on this committee, as have we all on both sides of
    the aisle.
        That's the budget that's, woefully, inadequate.
        Let me start with you, Mr. Gershman. We understand the
    critical importance of the NED's work and that of NDI and IRI
    around the world.
        The budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 requested a $67
    million for NED, which is a 60 percent cut from the amount,
    which is $170 million that Congress has appropriated yearly
    since fiscal year 2016.
        Not only did the fiscal year 2019 budget of the
    administration gut NED's funding, they also took aim at
    Congress' funding of your four core institutes--again, NDI,
    IRI, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the
    Solidarity Center.
        Let me ask, what effect would the drastic budget proposal
    have on your ability to fund democracy activities and if the
    budget became law what would have to be cut and how do you
    prioritize when the needs are so great?
        Mr. Gershman. Thank you very much for that question.
        There are, obviously, two fundamental problems with the OMB
    budget request for fiscal 2019--the amount and separating us
    from the four institutes.
        And both of these are devastating. I don't even want to get
    into now what we would have to cut. They're devastating--
    utterly devastating. It would virtually kill the whole program,
    and it's based upon, in my view, just a failure to understand
    what we do and the value of what we do.
        And I should point out to you, Congressman Engel, that we
    are in close touch with the NSC, with OMB, to try to talk about
    these issues. It's partly an educational process. It's also
    political, and to try to explain why NED is both effective and
    cost effective, I think, because we have a multi sectoral
    structure. It's also labor and business that is part of this in
    addition to our political parties, with the civil society
    groups that the NED supports directly, which is a broad and
    extremely effective and also cost-effective operation--cost-
    effective because we are not imposing things on people. We are
    supporting bottom-up processes. We are responding to demands
    that are on the ground, finding the best groups and helping
    them.
        And so this is something that works and I think Congress
    understands this. As I look around this committee, Congress
    understands that this is something effective, and in a way,
    we've always been an institution of the Congress.
        I look at Dante on the wall and Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde,
    Ben Gilman, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. You people have understood
    what this is all about from the very, very beginning.
        But we do have a problem now in terms of explaining this
    and educating a new generation who don't necessarily have the
    same history, and this is something we have to do, and things
    like we did last night when we brought these leaders of four
    North Korean NGOs to the Congress and got them around so people
    could meet them to see what they do with the defector
    organizations--North Koreans who've defected from North Korea
    who are now working both to rescue people and also to reach
    into North Korea with information, breaking down the
    communications blockade--the information blockade that the
    regime in North Korea has established. When people understand
    this in concrete terms and see how far small grants can go in
    assisting people who are on the front lines of the struggle for
    freedom, I believe we are going to get that support and we just
    have to keep fighting that.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you.
        Several formerly democratic countries, as I mentioned in my
    opening statement have moved in a decisively autocratic
    direction over the last several years. From Turkey to Venezuela
    to Russia, authoritarian leaders are diminishing democratic
    space, squelching the free press, and undermining the
    independence of their judiciaries.
        So let me ask Mr. Twining and Mr. Wollack--can your
    organizations function in these and other countries which have
    backslid so far? Is there ample latitude for effective
    employment of democracy promotion in places like these?
        Mr. Twining. Sir, there is. Some of the work has to be
    offshore. Obviously, all of it is in very tough conditions. We
    also need to play a long game. I mean, I will give you another
    example.
        You mentioned some back slipping. But in Malaysia, IRI has
    been working with the opposition there since 2002. Malaysia was
    essentially a one-party majoritarian state. The ruling party
    had ruled since 1957. It had gerrymandered all the districts,
    given itself every advantage. But in this last election a month
    ago, the opposition won for the first time in 60 something
    years, and that was an example of playing the long game, right.
        We, the United States, supported a democratic opposition
    that is now in charge of this very strategic country right
    there on the front lines of the South China Sea, right there on
    the front lines of the Islamic world's intersection with the
    rest of Asia, and that's good for America.
        So we look at a country like Russia and we see a leader who
    looks very strong but, frankly, who is very brittle and,
    frankly, quite insecure, and we know that Russians would like
    to have a choice and a different future--a much more European
    and prosperous than he can offer them.
        Mr. Engel. Mr. Wollack.
        Mr. Wollack. Let me just say, operating in the so-called
    semi-authoritarian regimes in which you have the forms of
    democracy. You have elections. You have political parties. You
    have civil society groups, some media, but in fact one party,
    one individual, one family controls all aspects of society and
    all political institutions.
        In many of these places, this is the most challenging
    environment to work and what we do is we work in these
    environments with civil society, with political actors and find
    reformist elements within the ruling elite and work with them.
        Sometimes, however, we become the canaries in the coal
    mine. When the governments want to crack down, fear any
    diffusion of political power, we become the victims of that
    along with those on the ground in places like Azerbaijan and
    places like Russia.
        And as Dan said, we have begun to work offshore in these
    places using long-distance learning, bringing people out. We
    use technology so they can share information among themselves,
    and sometimes, in places like Belarus, you can reach more
    people this way, too, where literally hundreds of thousands of
    people are being reached by these methods.
        But it's a challenge. But things change. Nothing is
    constant. In Armenia, for example, now there is a welcoming and
    an opening for the international community to return, to help
    institutions--newly-created institutions, helping the
    government reform, to communicate. And so, ultimately speaking,
    we play the long game in all of this. We understand that this
    is a process. It's not a destination and democracy isn't
    linear. But I think there have been many places where we were
    not welcome but we have returned as openings took place.
        Chairman Royce. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce and
    Ranking Member Engel, for your leadership in holding this
    important hearing.
        Ted and I, in our Middle East and North Africa
    Subcommittee, held a similar hearing last year when we heard
    from IRI and NDI, who are with us today, as well as from IFES
    and Freedom House, and these organizations make up four major
    implementers of U.S. democracy and governance assistance.
        I am grateful to each and every one of them as well as to
    NED for their constant efforts not just in the Middle East but
    every place where freedom and human rights are under attack.
        One of my biggest concerns is the increasing amount of
    collaboration between repressive regimes as dictators and their
    accomplices get together and they share best practices and
    techniques for crushing dissent.
        We see it in places like Egypt where Sisi is using similar
    tactics deployed in other countries and implementing choking
    restrictions on NGOs on foreign aid and the media and we see it
    in places like Nicaragua, and thank you to all of you who have
    brought that up, where the Ortega regime is not only executing
    Cuba's play book but staying in close contact with its
    operatives to co-opt institutions and repress the Nicaraguan
    people. And this collaboration problem is only going to get
    worse in the years ahead. I am concerned that we either aren't
    recognizing it or we are failing to give it the attention that
    it deserves. We cannot afford cuts to democracy and governance
    programs right now or, when it's appropriated, fail to
    implement programs because of directives from the White House
    or Embassies abroad.
        So I have two questions for the panel. What can you tell us
    about our Embassy in Lebanon's decision to cancel or refuse to
    renew U.S.-funded projects in the lead-up to the election and
    what impact do you think that had?
        And on Nicaragua, despite being designated for democracy,
    much of our aid ends up funding programs barely related to
    democracy and governance, if at all.
        What is your experience with U.S.-funded aid projects in
    Nicaragua and how can we do better?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wollack. In the case of Nicaragua, we have been working
    there for the past 5 years--well, going back to earlier times
    but in our latest effort we have been working on youth
    leadership programs and have worked with more than 8,000 youth
    on a very extensive course work and academies to develop youth
    engagement, and while, obviously, we are not training people to
    engage in revolutionary activities or regime change, obviously,
    youth is playing a prominent role in the demonstrations that
    are taking place now.
        Our programs, and I believe the programs of IRI, have been
    supported by both the NED and USAID, and it think that there is
    a commitment on the part of USAID to continue this effort.
        It's a very tense and difficult time right now, but I think
    there is a commitment. In terms of the Lebanese elections, we
    were in Lebanon for the elections with an international
    observer delegation.
        This was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.
    Funding was not available by USAID but the State Department and
    the Embassy and the USAID mission were quite supportive of that
    effort when we were in-country and the work that we did
    preceding the election.
        Mr. Twining. So, Congresswoman, my predecessor, Mark Green,
    is running USAID and Mark brings the insight, which I don't
    think is that surprising, but which apparently is an insight
    that if you don't have some decent governance and some
    institutions, most U.S. foreign assistance is not spent well in
    those countries.
        All these academic studies have been done showing that most
    development assistance, when it goes to corrupt kleptocratic
    badly-run countries, is wasted. It goes into elite pockets, et
    cetera, as you know.
        So another way to think about this democracy in governance
    work, whether it's in Nicaragua, whether it's in Lebanon,
    whether it's elsewhere, is that it basically offers you a real
    return on the other investments one is making in that country--
    that America is making in that country, and that if you don't
    have decent governance and some degree of democratic rule of
    law, you're not going to get very far with all your other
    efforts at engagement whether they're military, whether they're
    business, et cetera.
        In Lebanon, I will just say that another way to think about
    this work is there are lots of other foreign powers seeking to
    meddle and subvert and determine outcomes.
        We are not trying to determine outcomes. The work we are
    doing in the democracy community is to create a level playing
    field so the people's choice actually comes out in a vote or in
    a political process.
        But, gosh, in Lebanon you had the Saudis, you had the
    Iranians--I mean, you had all of these actors working to
    influence outcomes and that's something Americans should
    reflect on is we need a level playing field.
        Mr. Wollack. I should just add one thing and that is that
    Hugo Chavez once famously said that he was not the cause--he
    was the result. He was the result of failed political
    institutions in Venezuela.
        It wasn't that there were insufficient civil society
    organizations. The political parties, the legislature, were
    seen as being out of touch and corrupt, and often times when
    that happens and there's a crisis of confidence in political
    institutions, people either go to the streets or they vote for
    a populist leader who promises easy answers to very complex
    issues.
        And so the question in these places--and Venezuela used to
    be the teacher of democracy in the hemisphere--so the question
    becomes how do these institutions reform and modernize, and not
    that they're going to be the most popular institutions in the
    country but how do you avoid a crisis of confidence--how do you
    engage citizens--how do you promote women's political
    leadership, marginalized communities, youth engagement--all
    these things that give people a stake in the system. And that
    is the challenge for political institutions in every region of
    the world.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
        He yields to Mr. Greg Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I just am delighted to have these three gentlemen
    before us today, congratulating Mr. Wollack on 35 years of
    great service to our country. I've been with NDI on various
    election-monitoring missions and seen the great work that you
    have done.
        Mr. Twining, and I've known what IRI is doing and I've seen
    what you're doing specifically in Colombia with African-
    Colombians and working with the Ban Kata and making a
    difference in developing democracy there.
        And Mr. Gershman, I am a former board member at NED so I've
    seen firsthand the work that you and your dedication and the
    bipartisan board of NED collectively working together to try to
    make sure that we have a better world for all of us.
        So I thank all three of you and the organizations that you
    represent and have led for your work and your dedication to our
    country and to our world, because it is really, really, really
    needed and I thank you very much.
        Unfortunately, I am concerned about the data and I know
    that you all have put a positive spin on it, which is what you
    do, to try--because you're trying to make sure the world is
    better.
        But I think Congress has gotten it right, when I look at
    Congress and what they have put together--there's an
    appropriation of $170 million for NED. But yet, the
    administration's budget was $67 million, as Mr. Engel has
    talked about. That gives me grave concern.
        In fact, when I look at the fact that the current
    administration, the Trump budget has slashed all democracy-
    promotion funding by more than half, I see the State Department
    has been just about hollowed out, and we hope that Mr. Pompeo
    can bring back some of those individuals in the workforce.
        And then there's a proposed massive international affairs
    budget--their budget is being cut. I think that the committee
    gets it. I know that the chairman of this committee gets it. I
    know the ranking members and many others--we are going to work
    collectively together to make a difference because we
    understand the work that you do.
        I think with Mr. Gershman, who indicated that education is
    important now because of a different generation and different
    folks and, unfortunately, a different administration also, so I
    think--and part of that, as I travel particularly in Europe, as
    I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia,
    and Emerging Threats and I've gotten folks coming back and
    forth, I've been hearing a lot from our European allies that
    the President's embrace of strongmen and shunning of democratic
    allies and his attacks on our own democratic process and
    institutions, it's damaging us. So but maybe what we can do--
    and I will start with you, Mr. Wollack--could you please
    address the difference between your work, democracy promotion,
    and meddling, because some say that what we are doing is
    meddling and getting involved.
        Can you explain the difference between those things?
        Mr. Wollack. Well, this has been part of the Russian
    propaganda campaign as well. Russia, as the United States is,
    is a member of the OSCE--the Organization for Security and
    Cooperation and Europe.
        The OSCE was established based on democratic principles
    that all member states must abide. So when we are working in
    countries, particularly in that region of the world,
    Congressman, we are working under the principles established by
    the OSCE, which require members states to adhere to those
    principles.
        Our engagement is not to spread falsehoods. It's not to
    create fake news. It's not to try to disrupt the process. It's
    not to try to spur conflict in countries.
        What we are trying to do is promote the principles, values,
    processes, and institutions that are enshrined in an
    intergovernmental organization and our work is to try to help
    people engage in the political process.
        It's to help people monitor the political process, which is
    their right. It's about engagement, it's about monitoring, and
    it's about helping promote the integrity of the process.
        Russian efforts are exactly the opposite. It's designed to
    subvert a process in these countries and try to skew outcomes
    and it's a little bit like a doctor--one doctor who prescribes
    poison to a patient and another doctor who prescribes
    lifesaving medicine to a patient.
        I mean, they're both being prescribed by a doctor but one
    kills and one, hopefully, helps to cure.
        Chairman Royce. We'll go to Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    am perplexed by some of the testimony today and I will have to
    say that over the years one of the greatest things I've been
    proud of is Ronald Reagan's making human rights and democracy a
    major, major part of his administration's goals.
        But let us remember that Westminster speech--I remember it
    very well--I worked in the speech writing department during
    that time and I am not taking credit for the speech, however--
    let me note that.
        But in pursuing democracy and human rights and, basically,
    we needed to make sure that we did not and it was very clear
    that we did not take away and work against those regimes that
    were imperfect or had problems--democratic problems in a way
    that it would result in strengthening the Soviet Union and
    permit Communist governments to exist where flawed, not maybe
    authoritarian governments.
        In fact, Carl and I know very well your former boss, Jeanne
    Kirkpatrick, who was one of my great heroes and still is,
    differentiated between authoritarian and totalitarian
    governments.
        And what I think what we've gotten so far away from Jeanne
    Kirkpatrick, what we have are policies that undermine
    democratic governance, and to the benefit of what is our major
    threat today.
        Ronald Reagan wanted to use, and what worked, was make sure
    we supported democracy and human rights to defeat the major
    threat of the day, which was Soviet communism.
        All right. Today, radical Islamic terrorism is the major
    threat to Western civilization today, and if we end up
    undermining governments like in Egypt--undermining Egypt right
    now, as imperfect as General Sisi is, if we end up with a
    government that is controlled by radical Islamic terrorists we
    have done a great disservice to our people and to the world.
        We can speak of all these cliches--we all believe in those
    phrases that our Founding Fathers came forth and put forth to
    the countries and the people of the world--life, liberty, and
    the pursuit of happiness given to all human beings.
        We believe in that. But if we are so arrogant that we
    interfere with other people's democratic process because they
    are flawed and it results in more radical Islamic terrorism or
    Chinese hegemony, they we have done a disservice to the world
    and I see that creeping into our policies.
        I don't know why Indonesia was selected. Isn't our
    involvement in the Indonesian Government--isn't that meddling?
    I mean, Indonesia has a somewhat democratic government, and I
    see these complaints coming from all over the world now about
    how--did we or did we want involve ourselves heavily to
    undermine the democratically-elected government of Yanokovych
    in Ukraine? And what did it bring us? It brought us turmoil and
    conflict--that if we would have waited and let that government
    be elected, because of its flaws unelected, we would not be
    this situation today where the world is more likely to go into
    conflict because of that. I don't believe the Russians would
    have invaded Ukraine had we not arrogantly involved ourselves
    to overthrow that democratically elected government in Ukraine.
        And what we need to make sure is--we had a comment about
    the Arab Spring. I will tell you this about the Arab Spring.
    The Arab Spring may have brought more threat to this world than
    freedom.
        I remember very well the Shah of Iran, who was, yes, had a
    very flawed government. But you know what? We should have stuck
    by the Shah of Iran and it would be a more peaceful world and a
    world with more freedom in the world had we stuck with the Shah
    of Iran rather than cut him off at the knees.
        And we see that with Mubarak in Egypt. When we cut Mubarak
    off, we ended up with a government leader who was a follower of
    the Muslim Brotherhood.
        These things--look, if we are Americans we believe in
    freedom and we believe in democracy. But we better make sure
    that we--you know, what Ronald Reagan did when he gave that
    Westminster speech. We cannot permit that to allow the greatest
    enemy of freedom and democracy to come to power in various
    countries.
        So I've had my say. I know I am making everybody mad at me
    but I had to say it.
        If the chairman will allow, you certainly will have any
    amount of time you want to respond what I just said.
        Mr. Gershman. I feel like, if I may, I can call you Dana
    and Ambassador Kirkpatrick will be Jeanne in this discussion,
    because this is a discussion among ourselves and it's a long
    discussion.
        Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote that article back in 1979,
    ``Dictatorships and Double Standards,'' where she made the
    distinction you're talking about.
        Different period now, and Jeanne was a member of the IRI
    board--very close friend when the NED was created and she
    supported completely what we did and I think she did because
    what we do is very pragmatic. Dictatorships and double
    standards are based upon the idea that maybe there are only two
    choices, and I think what NED does is it offers a third choice
    and it offers a third choice by trying to work with whatever
    openings exist in authoritarian countries to move them toward
    democracy.
        And my great fear, Congressman, is that if that doesn't
    happen they will become targets for anti-democratic elements.
    And I gave a talk, which I would like to share with you,
    recently to the Potomac Institute on Democracy and Terrorism
    where I think that--and I quote an Israeli scholar in that talk
    on terrorism who says that the best way of fighting terrorism
    is through democracy, and there's a lot of evidence for that.
        And what I fear, I spoke about this in the talk--is that
    the way Sisi is opposing the Muslim Brotherhood and the
    extremists is actually making the problem worse.
        In the prisons where ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood are
    recruiting it's making the problem worse, and the example I
    gave in contrast to what Egypt is doing is Tunisia.
        In January, we ran an article by two IRI people in the
    Journal of Democracy who were saying that because the
    revolution in Tunisia did not produce immediate economic
    benefits for the people it became a fertile recruiting ground
    for ISIS, okay, and that was a problem.
        And I realize that these situations can become problems,
    but what Tunisia has done now--and I refer to this in my
    testimony--it's both fighting terrorism and controlling
    terrorism--there have been no terrorist incidents in Tunisia in
    the last 3 years--but also to deepen and broaden and make more
    inclusive democracy.
        And I think a tremendous step forward in the Middle East's
    first Arab democracy was taken on the May 6th local elections
    in Tunisia and where we all were involved in that, which, I
    think, the majority of candidates were young people in those
    elections.
        And through those types of elections, you have made
    democracy meaningful to people. You have told them that their
    voices count, and I think that is the best way, ultimately, to
    fight terrorism.
        I don't disagree with you about the problem of terrorism
    but you have to be smart in the way you fight it and I think
    the best way to fight it is by deepening and broadening
    democracy wherever we can.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
        Mr. Sherman. I think we need to avoid a belief that what we
    do in Washington controls the whole world and everything is all
    about us. The Shah fell--I am not sure there's anything that
    happened in Washington that caused that or could have prevented
    it.
        Mubarak fell trying to install a corrupt son to be his
    successor. I am not sure there's anything that could have
    happened in Washington that would have preserved him.
        It meets the psychological needs of both the Iranians and
    the Americans to say that in the 1950s we saved the Shah. That
    massively overstates our importance. But overstating our
    importance makes us feel good and overstating the degree to
    which Iran is subject to foreign manipulation meets the
    psychological needs of many Iranians.
        On North Korea, I will ask the witnesses or at least
    whoever answers first, is there a more repressive regime in the
    world? Can anyone name one?
        Mr. Gershman. No, this is----
        Mr. Sherman. Okay.
        Mr. Gershman [continuing]. The most repressive regime in
    the world.
        Mr. Sherman. To what extent do we undercut our credibility
    by not even mentioning how the North Korean people are treated
    when our President is in Singapore?
        Mr. Gershman. Congressman Sherman, we honored yesterday in
    the Congress four North Korean groups--groups working on human
    rights in North Korea and it was a great celebration about----
        Mr. Sherman. I am not asking about your wonderful
    organization.
        Mr. Gershman. One of the people we honored yesterday was
    the young man with the crutches who was celebrated during the
    State of the Union Address. I just want to note that.
        Mr. Sherman. I am going to ask also Mr. Wollack, does it
    undercut?
        Mr. Gershman. Okay, but what I do want to say is----
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Gershman, it's my time. I am going to
    ask----
        Mr. Gershman [continuing]. In my view----
        Mr. Sherman. I am going to ask Mr. Wollack to respond.
        Mr. Gershman. Okay. But let me just say one more thing.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sherman. I am not sure the chairman will give me 3 or 4
    extra minutes to allow long responses.
        Mr. Gershman. Give me one sentence.
        Mr. Sherman. If he will, then you're free to continue.
        Mr. Gershman. One sentence.
        Mr. Sherman. One sentence.
        Mr. Gershman. Thank you. I don't think any meaningful
    nuclear agreement is possible without promoting and defending
    human rights.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Wollack.
        Mr. Wollack. I think that there has been a sea change in
    the United States over the last 35 years in terms of our
    diplomatic missions.
        I don't think there is an Ambassador in any country that
    does not have democracy and human rights as part of his or her
    portfolio. That didn't exist 35 years ago.
        Now, in some places it's not the number-one agenda item.
        Mr. Sherman. I understand.
        Mr. Wollack. It may not be the second or third or the
    fifth.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Wollack.
        Mr. Wollack. And----
        [Crosstalk.]
        Mr. Sherman. I thank you for your comments, but my question
    was directed at what physically happened in Singapore. I
    realize the importance of human rights to the State Department
    in general.
        Mr. Wollack. No, no, no. I am--Congressman, all I am saying
    is that these are organizations who believe----
        Mr. Sherman. The question wasn't about your three
    organizations. It was about the President and his entourage in
    Singapore.
        One thing I want to point out is that perhaps the most
    important thing America does for democracy around the world is
    to serve as a model for democracy, and nothing would undermine
    that more than if we fail to have a verifiable auditable paper
    trail for our own elections, which Congress has yet to fund.
        What happened in the year 2000 in Florida and looking at
    chads would be a minor thing compared to a year 2020 election
    in which we believe that perhaps a foreign entity or other
    skullduggery was capable of manipulating the electoral count
    and that there was no way for us to audit it.
        And I want to turn our attention to Yerevan and Armenia.
    NED has allocated $1.3 million last year. Now we've seen a real
    move toward democracy. Are you going to do more, given the
    fluid situation there?
        Mr. Gershman. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
    Sherman.
        Yes. The answer is yes. Our board, which meets later this
    week, is making Armenia what we call a country eligible for
    contingency funds, which are funds set aside for new situations
    and, obviously, what's happened in Armenia is very, very new.
        And we--I think there are several priorities that have to
    be addressed. There are going to be quick elections that have
    been called in Armenia and those elections have to have
    integrity to them to give legitimacy to the current Pashinyan
    government.
        There is a Parliament that oversees this and government
    officials are really new to the governing game. The system has
    been controlled by a centralized authority for a number of
    years and so a lot of training will have to be necessary for
    some of the new government officials.
        And then finally, there's going to be a big information
    war, the kind of issue raised by Congressman Royce, and it is
    very essential in this period--and this is what the groups that
    we help are doing--is to get people reliable and independent
    information so they don't make the judgments based upon the
    disinformation that is going to be promoted by the forces that
    have just been removed from power.
        Mr. Sherman. Let me, finally, comment that we have to
    believe in democracy and elections even when we are on the
    losing side and we can't be for overthrowing a democratically-
    elected government even if the people doing it are Westernized,
    waging a color revolution.
        If the government was legitimately elected, the fact that
    it has lost popularity in the capital city should not be a
    reason for discarding democratic institutions and a government
    does not fall because it becomes unpopular on a particular day
    under most constitutions.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Nicaragua appears to be heading in the same direction--off
    a cliff--as Venezuela and Cuba before that. The brutal thug,
    Daniel Ortega, has been using lethal force against innocent
    protestors, having already killed approximately 150 people.
    Many more have been wounded or been tortured or have just
    disappeared.
        There was a massacre of innocent protestors, many of them
    women, on Nicaraguan Mother's Day recently--very recently. Pro-
    government Sandinista mobs and gangs are terrorizing and
    killing its own innocent people. What can be done to help
    innocent Nicaraguan civilians who are being brutalized by their
    own government?
        Whoever would like to handle that.
        Mr. Gershman. Well, Nicaragua happened almost at the same
    time as Armenia and they had, so far, very different outcomes.
    In Armenia, the government withdrew. It was not overthrown.
        The Serzh government withdrew and a new government came in
    and they're going to have elections. In Nicaragua, the church
    intervened. There was an uprising. The church intervened to try
    to have a negotiated settlement there and that's fallen apart.
        It was the young people especially in Nicaragua--the
    students--and I was impressed in both Armenia and Nicaragua
    that a lot of the groups that we were supporting just to do
    regular training programs, leadership training, information
    programs--when these events happened, these are people who are
    in the middle of the struggle. It's not something that we are
    doing.
        It's their struggle. But if you sort of find the most
    creative and dynamic and dedicated democrats, they're going to
    be in these struggles when an opportunity comes, and it
    happened in Nicaragua with the announced reform of the pension
    system.
        It was the spark that led to this uprising. These young
    people were in the forefront of this struggle and they need
    continued support and solidarity. There are immediate groups
    there that need continued support and solidarity.
        We have to work with and help the church, which is trying
    to mediate this conflict and we have to let Ortega know that
    there really is no future for his regime. He's lost his
    legitimacy.
        A lot of the young people who are in the streets were
    former supporters of the Sandinistas. He has lost those people
    and Nicaragua has to move now on a democratic path.
        That's going to be a very complicated thing because there
    needs to be a political strategy developed by the people in
    Nicaragua to lead to this. There's no real party right now
    which can offer an alternative to Ortega. They're going to have
    to do that.
        But we just have to continue to support the civil society,
    media, and other elements that are the authentic democratic
    elements and that are outraged by the really utter corruption
    and the undermining of all the so-called claims to democracy
    that Ortega had.
        He's lost his legitimacy. It's time for him to go and we
    have to sort of see this process move forward peacefully.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        I will move on to another issue. I introduced, and the
    House passed, the Protecting Girls' Access to Education Act,
    which would prioritize education, especially for girls who are
    particularly at risk around the world, in State Department
    programs.
        Could somebody touch on how, in your experience, promoting
    education among vulnerable populations helps to strengthen
    democratic institutions?
        Mr. Twining.
        Mr. Twining. So, I mean, we are not directly in the
    education business but could I just pick up your point about
    girls and women?
        Mr. Chabot. Yes.
        Mr. Twining. It's just really one of the single best
    variables for determining whether a country will have a
    successful democratic outcome in institutions is the role of
    women in political life.
        I mean, one of the pathologies of much of the Arab world is
    that women have been absent from political life in so many
    ways.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        Mr. Twining. So much of our work in the democracy community
    revolves around trying to empower women and it's not just about
    kind of training and mechanics. It's about a mindset change
    that they do have an equal voice in their country's political
    life and future.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I only have a little time left. I
    want to give you another question, Mr. Wollack, if I can, real
    quickly.
        Last year, Prime Minister Hun Sen expelled NDI from
    Cambodia. My Democratic colleague, Alan Lowenthal, and I are
    the congressional caucus co-chairmen of the Cambodia Caucus and
    we followed the situation very closely.
        There's little doubt that next month's elections are going
    to be a sham. So what do you think is our best response? Is
    there much hope for continuing to promote true democracy in
    Cambodia at this point?
        Mr. Wollack. I think since the 1993 elections in Cambodia
    it's been a series of coups in the country. The CPP did not
    accept the results and Hun Sen did not accept the results of
    the 1993 elections and forced a coalition government, despite
    losing that election.
        In 1997, there was another coup in which the opposition was
    exiled and the latest actions by the government is the third
    coup since the U.N.--UNTAC-run elections.
        What we can do right now is to, as Carl said, keep a
    lifeline to civil society organizations on the ground that are
    trying to engage as actively as they can under very difficult
    circumstances and we can continue to provide a lifeline to a
    legitimate political party that most likely would have won the
    elections if it had been allowed to compete freely and fairly,
    and I think one of the reasons why the government went after
    them is their internal polls showed that they were going to
    lose the election.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        Mr. Wollack. So I think we can keep a lifeline both to the
    leadership of the party, most of which is in exile, and also to
    the civic groups on the ground.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Chabot, getting women more involved in
    the political sphere and in the economy is something we've been
    focused on with the hearings in this committee and it's
    something we will continue to double down.
        Mr. Wollack. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one
    quick point.
        I think that one of the best ways that you can address the
    issue of women's education and girls and women's enterprises is
    to get more women elected to leadership positions in political
    institutions.
        There is lots of research that shows when there's a
    critical mass of women in parliaments and in government, they
    will address those issues more effectively, and one of the
    things that NDI and IRI does--they do is to try to help
    political parties, particularly in parliamentary systems,
    reform so women have greater leadership roles and are higher up
    enough on lists in parliamentary systems so they actually get
    represented in parliaments, and then what you see are changes
    that level the playing field for men and women in areas of
    education and business.
        Chairman Royce. Okay.
        We go to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida.
        Mr. Deutch. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    all of our witnesses for being here. The work that you do has
    never been more important than it is today and, Mr. Wollack, I
    would join my colleagues in thanking you for your dedication to
    promoting democracy and rule of law and governance and
    contributions you made throughout a very distinguished career
    and wish you all of the best in your retirement.
        There was a--well, actually, let me ask this question
    first. We had touched on Kim Jong-un. Could I just ask you to
    describe the nature of Kim's regime?
        Mr. Gershman. This is a personalistic dictatorship. It's a
    dynasty in the sense that he's the grandson of Kim Il-sung, who
    created the regime.
        There is maybe the issue that has gotten most attention is
    the Kwan-li-so, which is the prison camp system where there are
    now 120,000 prisoners. But, as I said last night in remarks I
    made at the award event for our grantees working on North
    Korea, I understand that, reliably, about 400,000 people have
    died in those prison camps. There was, obviously, also mass
    starvation in the 1990s.
        But I consider what's happening in North Korea today,
    Congressman Deutch, an eroding totalitarian system. When we
    started our work in North Korea there was a complete
    information blockade.
        There were no North Koreans who were able to get outside.
    There are now 31,000. The information blockade has broken down.
    One of the groups who are running unification media group is
    getting news in and getting news out.
        There is a market system now in North Korea because of the
    collapse of the state distribution system during the famine of
    the 1990s.
        This is an eroding totalitarian system. So we shouldn't
    give up hope on the possibilities for internal change.
        Mr. Deutch. Right. So that gets me to my question. When the
    President had a face-to-face meeting with Kim--the leader of a
    country where there's been mass starvation, 400,000 dead in
    these prisons, 120,000 prisoners--and then went on in an
    interview the next day in response to a question from Brett
    Baier referred to Kim as a tough guy--he said when you take
    over a country--a tough country, and you take it over from your
    father, I don't care who you are, what you are, how much of an
    advantage you have--if you can do that at 27 years old, I mean,
    that's one in 10,000 that can do that, so he's a very smart
    guy.
        Brett Baier then followed up and said, but he's still doing
    some really bad things, and the President said, yeah, but so
    have other people done some really bad things. I can go through
    a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.
        I've got to ask this questions. I have all sorts of
    questions about Russia and Russia's attempts to meddle. I have
    all sorts of notes here about the work that you're doing in
    countries around the world where democracy is at risk.
        But how much more difficult is your work--how much more
    difficult is democracy promotion and standing up for--and
    standing up against repressive regimes that have 120,000
    prisoners where 400,000 have died, where there's mass
    starvation--how much harder is it when the President of the
    United States seems to condone the actions of the worst and
    most brutal dictators in the world?
        Mr. Twining. Sir, I mean, I would just say we've all been
    in business for 35 years, right, and we are so directly tied to
    Congress, which was central to the formation of the democracy
    community institutes. Everywhere I go in the world, I talk
    about congressional leadership in issues like you were
    describing right now.
        I would also just say I think there's a fundamental insight
    that most Republicans and most Democrats share, which is that
    the nature of the threat to the United States from a country
    like North Korea stems from the nature of its regime.
        Mr. Deutch. Mr. Gershman.
        Mr. Gershman. Mr. Wollack, you're leaving, I mean----
        Mr. Wollack. There's no solution aside from----
        Mr. Deutch. Any comments? [Laughter.]
        Feel free to speak freely.
        Mr. Wollack. I think democrats in countries all over the
    world look to the United States. Oftentimes they do, as Dan
    said, look to the Congress as the first address because usually
    it's the Congress, irrespective of administrations, that have
    recognized their struggle.
        Don't forget, it's the Congress that established the NED.
    It was the Congress that established the Bureau for Democracy,
    Human Rights, and Labor at the State Department.
        These have been instructional initiatives. My chairman,
    Madeline Albright, talks about this being Article I time on
    these issues, and I would agree with that assessment.
        I think when American leadership doesn't speak out on these
    issues, people in these countries do feel more vulnerable.
    There is no doubt about that.
        Yet, these people who are very, very brave people are able
    also to compartmentalize and they look to international
    solidarity in a variety of ways.
        And so when there is not American leadership in a
    particular place at a particular time, hopefully, that void can
    be filled by other engagement, and it's--as I said, and it's
    not only a particular leader, a particular government. This has
    waxed and waned over the years.
        Mr. Deutch. Mr. Wollack, I am grateful, actually, for the
    responses from all of you. I am heartened by them and I am
    immensely grateful to the chairman and my colleagues on this
    committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who continue to
    stand up for American ideals in every part of the world.
        We need to continue to do that and I would note that the
    same thing applies to standing up for our own democracy here at
    home, and I yield back.
        Mr. McCaul [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gershman, what a great event last night to honor----
        Mr. Gershman. Thank you for speaking.
        Mr. McCaul. Yes, and for me to present awards to two
    dissidents who were standing up for human rights in North
    Korea, and in particular, Ji Seong Ho, who was, as you
    mentioned, at the State of the Union, in crutches, for me to be
    able to do that was just an incredible experience, and I want
    to thank all of you for what you do for human rights.
        And I think you mentioned Reagan's speech at Westminster in
    1982 where he said the march of freedom and democracy would
    leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history, and I
    think he was right.
        But I want to focus on China. I could talk about Russia and
    I could talk about--I've seen the rise and fall of ISIS under
    my tenure as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee but
    now I see the rise of nation states being the bigger threats
    now--that being Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
        I had a briefing yesterday in a classified setting on ZTE
    and Huawei, and their efforts to conduct espionage in this
    country. I've also seen them in Sri Lanka where they have
    burdened them with so much debt that they had to turn over a
    strategic port to the Chinese.
        We see the Chinese now in Djibouti for the first time and
    we see them leveraging the continent of Africa into so much
    debt that they will be able to eventually take over these
    countries and exploit them.
        They bring in their own workers. They don't even hire the
    host countries' workers and they export their natural resources
    in what is this One Belt, One Road policy.
        I just want to open this discussion up to the three of you
    on your perception of the threat of China and what the United
    States needs to do in response.
        Mr. Gershman.
        Mr. Gershman. We talk about this all the time. I believe
    this is the most serious problem and the most serious threat
    our country faces today. I disagree with Congressman
    Rohrabacher. I think this is much, much more serious than the
    problem of terrorism, and it's something that I think our
    country is beginning to understand.
        In March, The Economist magazine had a cover story on
    China, and the bottom line of the cover story was--and this is
    a direct quote--``The West's 25-year bet on China has failed.''
        The bet was that if China was brought into the World Trade
    Organization, was encouraged to grow economically, it would
    become a more liberal society and be part of the liberal world
    order.
        The exact opposite happened, and I think, Mr. Chairman,
    that I had mentioned in my testimony Liu Xiaobo--that the
    Chinese destroyed him.
        In 2006, Liu Xiaobo--he's a Nobel Laureate who died in
    prison--wrote an essay where he warned against the problem of
    China rising as a dictatorship, and he mentioned Hitler.
        He mentioned the Meiji emperors in Japan. He mentioned
    Stalin, and he said, this is the danger. This is going to be a
    threat for liberal democracy around the world. He was then
    silenced.
        But what he was saying then, I think, is now becoming
    understood by the foreign policy establishment. There was a
    recent policy article in Foreign Affairs by Kurt Campbell
    basically recognizing that the old view was wrong--that it
    hasn't happened that way and that people are now recognizing
    that we have a new problem. It's a problem with the Belt and
    Road Initiative, which is not just an economic expansion.
        This is intimately tied to China's geopolitical and
    military strategy precisely to get strategic ports in Sri Lanka
    or in Maldives because they fall into the debt trap and pay
    back by leasing their ports. There's the issue of sharp power.
        There's the issue of the South China Sea and the violation
    of the judgement of the international tribunal, which said that
    they did not have control of those islands. This is now being
    recognized as the central problem.
        We have to get our minds around this and we are really at
    the beginning of an effort to try to understand how to deal
    with this problem.
        And I just think that as we go forward in thinking about
    this problem the immediate response is going to be a military,
    a geostrategic, an economic response. But don't forget the
    people of China.
        Don't forget that there are people like Liu Xiaobo in China
    who want a different kind of future and when you tighten the
    centralized power the way Xi Jinping has centralized power
    there are going to be a lot of unhappy people.
        There are going to be splits. We have to not give up on the
    possibility for democratic change in China and keep findings
    ways to support them.
        I realize I am a great optimist. I am always looking at the
    positive side in North Korea in every country, but I really
    deeply believe that this is possible.
        I also think, by the way, that we have to keep our eyes
    focused on the minorities issue, what's happening with the
    Uighurs. It's not physically genocidal but they've got
    internment camps, reeducation camps where a million Uighurs are
    now in those camps.
        There should be an outcry in the Muslim world against this.
    I was speaking with one of our Uighur participants in last
    night's event about this, how can we get the Muslim world to
    protest against the repression of the Uighurs.
        There's the Tibetan issue. We have to challenge--we talked
    about this at the December hearing--we have to challenge China,
    which says that the Dalai Lama must accept the fact that
    Tibet's been part of China since antiquity, which is not true.
    China invaded Tibet. Tibet did have an international legal
    identity.
        We have to challenge these things. We have to defend
    Taiwan. We have to defend Taiwan, which is a Confucius culture
    and a democracy, and China is very much aware of that.
        They would love to eliminate Taiwan or absorb Taiwan. We
    have to ensure that Taiwan could remain an independent
    democracy. We also have to defend Hong Kong.
        So we have to stand firm with the people who are in these
    struggles and not let them lose hope.
        Mr. McCaul. And my time has expired. But I just want to
    close by saying, I remember reading bin Laden's writings. He
    projected exactly what their intentions were, and the Chinese--
    I agree with you--are now the bigger threat and they have
    telegraphed that by 2025 they will be a world-dominating power
    both militarily and economically and I think the United States
    needs to wake up to that fact.
        The chair now recognizes Ms. Karen Bass from California.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to
    welcome my colleagues from NED and IRI and NDI, and I am a
    member of the NED board, for my colleagues that are here on the
    committee, and I have to say the work that NED does around the
    world is really tremendous, and I had the honor recently of
    being at the World Movement for Democracy in Senegal.
        And meeting people from all around the world who are all
    committed to fighting for democracy was quite an honor. I
    wanted to ask each of you if you would talk about one challenge
    that is facing that in Africa that all of us are very, very
    concerned about and that's the Democratic Republic of the
    Congo.
        They were supposed to have elections in 2016, and now is
    supposedly putting the elections off until December of this
    year, and I don't believe there's been any indication that
    Kabila has made any commitment not to run and the deteriorating
    situation there in regard to democracy.
        And I wanted to know if you would each speak to the work of
    each of your entities within DRC and then also what more do you
    think Congress can be doing.
        Mr. Wollack. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        First of all, I just want to make one comment about the
    African continent because when people talk about backsliding,
    people tend to ignore the changing face on the continent.
        Between 1960 and 1990 there were four African heads of
    state that stepped down voluntarily, and since 1990 that figure
    is over 50.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. I appreciate you pointing that out
    because we don't acknowledge when there's peaceful transitions
    of power, which happen frequently, as you have mentioned.
        Mr. Wollack. And some of the fastest growing economies in
    the world are in places now that are new democracies on the
    African continent.
        In terms of the DRC, it is a mystery. Nobody knows what is
    going to happen. What we are trying to do is to work with
    political parties across the spectrum, trying to promote
    dialogue and preparations for what everybody expects, or
    everybody hopes if not expects, in December.
        But the big question is going to be Kabila himself. I fear
    if he makes a decision to run, you're going to see massive
    social unrest in the country, which not only is going to affect
    the people of the DRC but it'll have regional implications.
        And so the question is, how do you prepare now for a
    process with the assumption that he will make the right
    decision--really, the only decision, that he should make and
    that's what we are all doing--working with civil society
    organizations to monitor the elections, helping the parties
    develop sort of the rules of the game for the election, support
    the election commission and NDI, IRI, and IFES have been
    working in tandem, identifying what the needs are and then
    working on the ground and trying to respond to those needs.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Mr. Twining. Congresswoman, could I just add--I mean, that
    sums up some of our work. But there's a broader dynamic, which
    is that there are these African success stories. But we had an
    African leader say to us recently the problem--you look at DRC,
    you look at South Sudan. These countries aren't just a problem
    for themselves.
        Ms. Bass. Right.
        Mr. Twining. They destabilize the entire--refugee flows,
    illegal drugs, militias, everything, the whole human
    trafficking--and that when you think about the African
    integration agenda, when you think about 1 billion new people
    coming online in Africa in the next 30 years and what the
    economic potential of that is versus the darker scenario if
    those people don't have opportunity--if they are pushed to the
    political extremes.
        We have got to get these almost black holes right, right,
    that are destabilizing the entire continent, and it's a bigger
    job than any of us can do. But thank you for the focus on it.
        Ms. Bass. Sure.
        Mr. Gershman. I just think that more people have died in
    the Congo over the last 20 years from conflict and the disease
    and violence associated with conflict than in any other country
    in the world.
        So this is a problem that has to be central to our
    attention. I would say only one other point. The opposition is
    going to come from grassroots citizen movements if there is not
    a free and fair election. There is----
        Ms. Bass. Which NED supports.
        Mr. Gershman. Just as we've seen in other countries like
    Burkino Faso, Senegal, in 2012, where they had the uprising--
    the Y'en a Marre uprising--and you have these citizen movements
    that are now all over Africa, and they are the leading force
    that, I think, is going to lead to change in the Congo, and a
    lot of the groups that we support, you know, are trying to
    train and educate people in these citizen movements.
        Ms. Bass. And let me just say, Mr. Chair, before I move on
    that we do have a bipartisan bill that we've been working on
    that I do hope we have a markup on in this committee as soon as
    possible.
        And in walks our chair, Mr. Royce. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. McCaul. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you all
    sitting here. I've had the opportunity to speak with most of
    you and I've read your stuff over the years. I really do
    appreciate the work you do in your organizations, and that is
    to spread the values and ideals that we hold true, and that
    President Reagan was so great sharing with the rest of the
    world, and those are life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of
    happiness along with human rights as enshrined and protected in
    our Constitution.
        We have been attempting to perfect it over 200 years
    through many trials and tribulations, and yet we still don't
    have it right. So bear with me for a moment.
        As you know, the word democracy is used loosely around the
    world. We have a pretty good understanding here. A democracy is
    defined as majority rule, or mob rule, and we have a
    constitutional republic, a republic that uses a democratic
    process where the majority of votes won in an electoral college
    system wins and, yes, some countries do have a majority rule by
    the votes that are cast by the electorate.
        So when we talk about spreading democracy around the world,
    I wonder if we are not spreading the wrong message. If one is
    to watch our news and you see the constant of our political
    leaders, all the way up to our President, and they receive it
    24/7 that people in America are not happy with our many
    freedoms, do you see where it gives leaders in other countries
    pause and casts doubts to its citizens on fighting for what
    kind of a country they want, or what form of government, like a
    democracy?
        Then a leader like Xi Jinping points to America and points
    out the flaws of democracies, or Chavez, Castro, or Maduro says
    they are a result of failed democracies. Or any other
    authoritarian dictator or thug points to a democracy as a
    flawed form of government.
        Again, is there cause for people or leaders in a country to
    question what form of government they want? We believe it. We
    fought for it. We've had it for 200 years.
        As you all have said, democracy is on the ropes and it's
    being challenged, and I think of Mohammad Ali talking about the
    old rope-a-dope in the boxing ring.
        It's something we've had to fight for and it's something
    that we believe in and we hold these values true. But today
    there is a paradigm shift going on around the world we have not
    seen since pre-World War II and there are two dominant players
    today.
        One is us--the United States, with the most successful, and
    I am going to put democracy in quotes or, more accurately, a
    republic, that offers those liberties, freedoms, in the pursuit
    of happiness along with the human rights and self-governance,
    provided one stays within the parameter of the law, and we
    honor the rule of law.
        These are the rights guaranteed and protected by our
    Constitution.
        And the second being offered is by China and their dictator
    now for life, Xi Jinping, offering an alternative to leaders
    around the world. He's not going to offer it to people in
    another country. He's going to offer it to their leaders.
        Their form of socialism with Chinese characteristics and,
    as we all know, that's communism. Our form of government
    empowers the people. Empowered people reach their full
    potential. China empowers the government where the people are
    suppressed for the benefit of the government.
        And so as we go around, doing what you do--and I commend
    the work you do because it's vital--we have to--we can't back
    off of it, and no amount of money is going to fix it. You're
    not going to spread it everywhere in the world.
        But if you spread those ideals that President Reagan spoke
    about, those are innate in every human being on this planet.
    Those are the things that will win by empowering people to
    those ideals they know they have, and there's not enough money
    in the world to do it.
        But if you empower those people by working through the NGOs
    and the things like you guys do and find those leaders that are
    willing to tie into that, we'll win that every time because you
    cannot suppress people over and over again because they yearn
    to be free.
        And so knowing what we know, as we talked about earlier, we
    get asked a lot about North Korea. Yes, it's very dangerous and
    it's very serious. But it can be dealt with diplomatically, I
    truly believe, and we are on the road.
        You know, a job begun is half done. And the biggest threat
    we have is that challenge to the form of government that we see
    challenged today and how do you think the best way we need to
    go about challenging what we see as the rising dragon out of
    the East?
        Mr. Gershman or Mr. Twining, you are ready there.
        Mr. Twining. I could be quick, because Carl got his shot on
    China and I was hoping to get mine. [Laughter.]
        So it's very interesting with China because the Chinese
    used to bide their time, keep a low profile. That was the Deng
    Xiaoping advice.
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        Mr. Twining. Xi Jinping has come out and said actually
    China can be a model for you, other countries----
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        Mr. Twining [continuing]. And it's the whole suite that, if
    you're a strongman in another country it's very attractive.
    It's not just the money. It's not just the one-party system or
    one-man system.
        It's the surveillance architecture. This Orwellian total
    surveillance state they're building with artificial
    intelligence and facial recognition and all this stuff.
        It's very attractive, as you say, not to people but to
    leaders. So, I mean, I think first response is we've got to
    stick with this. Gosh, if there was ever a bad time for America
    to cede the field, it's not that--this is a bad time to cede
    the democracy field to other countries, who have very malign
    intentions.
        That's one. Two, your fundamental insight, which, put
    another way, is that the thing about China and also Putin, they
    are fundamentally most afraid of their own people.
        Mr. Yoho. They are.
        Mr. Twining. Right. We are not. We have a system that is
    very responsive--totally responsive to our publics and we have
    regular elections--do monitor that.
        These leaders, their strategic Achilles heel is fear of
    their own publics and I think we should think about the old
    Reagan message of exploiting that a little.
        Mr. Yoho. I would like to get everybody's comment but I am
    out of time with respect to everybody else. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. So we are going to go to Bill Keating of
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just want to follow up a little bit on Mr. Deutch's
    question a little bit, and I mean this--I know you want to get
    away from partisan kind of issues but sometimes you can't.
        One of our goals when we go to countries and we are
    representing the United States of America we are proponents in
    our own rights, as Members of Congress, on issues like freedom
    of the press, rule of law, freedom of religion, free elections.
        But, honestly, not so much in public conversations but
    privately we get thrown back in our face freedom of the press--
    well, what about fake news--what about, you know, business
    attacks at networks, undermining that from the business
    concern, which the President has done?
        What about rule of law issue where these partisan attacks
    on enforcement agencies like the FBI or attacks on the
    judiciary based on the family history and nationality of one of
    the judges--freedom of religion on exclusionary orders or
    freedom of elections from statements that 5 million people in
    our country are voting illegally, or congratulating Putin on
    his election or even recently the German Ambassador putting his
    hands on the scales saying that he hopes in Europe that is more
    conservative winning in the elections, to paraphrase him
    loosely?
        So those are the issues. It's hard for us to do that. Any
    suggestions?
        Mr. Wollack. I will just make perhaps one point in this.
    There is an issue, too. Even though there were NGOs, we are
    operating on U.S. Government money, too. And so there is
    understandable, I think, reluctance to get involved in
    critiquing the administration's foreign policy.
        Mr. Keating. Okay. Maybe this.
        Forget what I just said and pretend it's a hypothetical.
        Mr. Wollack. But I will tell you that overseas what people
    admire most about the United States is not a single individual.
    It happens to be the institutions of this country.
        There are many people and many places who would say we
    aspire to have your problems, because if our leader says
    something we do not have the option to turn on television and
    hear that leader criticized in mainstream media. We don't see
    the courts operating to create some check on the executive. We
    don't see Congress with the Article 1 powers, the right to
    subpoena, the right to control the budgets, that can provide
    another check.
        We don't see civil society in a way that can deal with
    these issues. So I think there's an understanding that there
    are problems politically. There are problems in this country.
        There are problems in lots of other traditional
    democracies, and the sense of people in these countries that
    the traditional systems are not responding to their needs.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you. If I could just interrupt for a
    second, thank you for taking a stab at that. I would say this,
    too.
        Often I preface statements to other countries where we
    might be a little critical of the way they're operating. I say,
    you got to understand our country. We criticize ourselves, I
    said, so what I am doing and what we are doing here, that's us.
    That's part of our DNA.
        So I think it's a great point to point out the fact that,
    look, we are having our own political differences--but that's
    what we are about.
        So thank you for that. I have another quick question that's
    really granular, I know, because I just received some
    correspondence--and we mentioned Nicaragua before and some of
    the violence.
        I had a disturbing communication sent to me with the
    threats on some Jesuit priests and the clergy that are there.
        They're outspoken in many of their doctrines, and there's a
    Father Jose Alberto Idiaquez, who is a rector there in Central
    America University in Nicaragua. He's an educator. But his life
    has been threatened.
        Can we do anything as a country to try and deal with those
    issues where even educational heads--religious heads are just
    speaking up and their lives are being threatened? Is there
    something we can do in the U.S. to try and help in that regard
    at all? Any suggestions, based on your experience?
        Mr. Gershman. Throughout the world we are in countries
    where the people that we work with are being threatened, being
    killed, and we do everything we can. Congresswoman Bass
    mentioned the World Movement for Democracy and we have an alert
    system where we put out alerts which go around the world and we
    can do that.
        The government, presumably has tried to provide training
    for security services. But you have a corrupt government in
    Nicaragua, which is actually part of the problem, not part of
    the solution.
        Ultimately, you have got to press for political change
    there because this system is responsible for killing a lot of
    dissidents, and organizing these turbas against young people
    who have their own legitimate criticisms of the government, and
    I just think we have to mobilize both through official
    channels, our Government, the international community but also
    then the private human rights organizations to put pressure on
    Nicaragua so Ortega realizes he can't get away with this.
        And then we have to continue to support the people inside
    Nicaragua who are fighting for a better way of governing
    themselves.
        Mr. Keating. My time has expired. I thank you all. Forward
    some of this information.
        Mr. Wollack. I would say publicity under these
    circumstances is the best response, whether it's the OAS, the
    Human Rights Commission within the OAS, whether it's Members of
    Congress, whether it's human rights organizations around the
    world.
        That is not an antidote but it provides a degree of
    protection.
        Mr. Keating. As you may gather, that's why I mentioned it.
        Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you.
        We go to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to tap my
    foot and say amen to my friend, Mr. Keating, from
    Massachusetts, and his comments and his questions.
        I want to cover three subjects in 5 minutes so make your
    answers brief. So if I ask you the time, don't tell me how to
    make a watch, if you can appreciate it, because you all have a
    lot of wisdom here.
        Globally, what do you personally see is the number-one
    entity that is a threat to democracy, worldwide? Is it China?
    Is it Russia? Is it North Korea? Is it ISIS? Is it Iran?
        Pick one. Pick the one you think is a threat.
        Mr. Gershman. China.
        Mr. Poe. China.
        Mr. Gershman. China.
        Mr. Poe. Mr. Twining.
        Mr. Twining. China.
        Mr. Poe. Mr. Wollack.
        Mr. Wollack. Russia.
        Mr. Poe. Russia. Russia and China.
        Okay. Turkey--it seems to me Turkey is moving away from
    democratic principles at a rapid rate, everything from Erdogan
    to security guards coming to the United States and beating up a
    bunch of Americans and then fleeing the country and Erdogan
    never, I think, took responsibility for that, and some of the
    things internally that are happening to what I see democracy in
    Turkey.
        What can we do to help Turkey move back toward a democratic
    state? Anyone of you want to tackle that? Then I have one more
    question.
        Mr. Gershman. Well, look, they've got elections coming up
    in less than 2 weeks--June 24th--and those elections could go
    to a second round. That's very, very important and we should
    insist that these elections are free and fair and that there's
    a fair count there, even though the media situation is not
    fair.
        The regime in Turkey--there's a real economic crisis. I
    think they're worried about that. They want an election soon
    because they see the economic problems coming later, and so I
    think if you can help the alternative points of view emerging
    there--I know that NDI and IRI are both working on that and
    they may want to say a word. I think what would be very, very
    helpful.
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Mr. Twining. Just very quickly, I would say if there was
    some way for us to stabilize Syria--not us the democracy
    community, us the West----
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Mr. Twining [continuing]. Because he has manipulated anti-
    Kurdish nationalism inside Turkey to bolster his political
    standing and hollow out institutions.
        Mr. Poe. Good point.
        Mr. Wollack. Support for the democratic center because he's
    been able to play off the very--the opposition parties and
    opposition groups over the nationalism issue, and how do you
    support the democratic center in the country and a large civil
    society network that are advocating for these checks and
    balance principles.
        Mr. Poe. Okay. And the other issue I want to talk about are
    the three countries of Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia.
        All three countries, I think, seem to have the similar
    issues internally and externally. All three countries are
    occupied by Russian troops. They're close to Russia and to me
    it seems like they're kind of on the fence about which way
    they're going to go.
        I met with all three Speakers of the House not long ago in
    Moldova, and we talked about these very issues. But what is the
    realistic situation in those three countries today as you see
    it?
        Mr. Twining. Sir, I lived in Georgia for 3 years before
    this job. We also have a lot of Ukrainians coming through IRI.
    I don't think there is a big divide. They want to be part of
    the West.
        They want to lean toward Europe, toward the United States.
    A Google executive told me that Russia is waging a ``total
    war'' against Ukraine in cyberspace. He said it's like
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki in cyberspace. You just don't see it
    because it's all these digital assaults on Ukrainian Government
    institutions, on free media in Ukraine, et cetera.
        So I would just reference that I don't think the people are
    equally divided. Most of the people in those countries want to
    be part of the modern Western world.
        Mr. Poe. I was in Georgia the week after the Russians
    invaded in 2008, and the Russians are still there. Now, I would
    agree that it's the people that want to move to the West. But
    the government maybe doesn't seem like it to me that are moving
    to the West.
        But maybe you disagree.
        Comments by the other two of you on those three countries--
    Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
        Mr. Wollack. Yes. I would say Moldova is slightly different
    than Ukraine and Georgia in this regard. Both--in Georgia,
    overwhelming majorities are for joining the EU and NATO and a
    large majority in Ukraine.
        Moldova is mixed, and the problem in Moldova is you have a
    substantial portion that looks East and a substantial portion
    that looks to the West but doesn't see the benefits coming from
    integration, and they view the pro-Western parties as corrupt
    and out of touch.
        And so you have a very divided government. You have a
    divided population and that can go either way. And so the
    parties that favor European integration have not been doing a
    very good job in terms of communicating with the public on the
    benefits of participation in the EU and they are seeing that
    there's a crisis of confidence in those parties.
        And the question is whether there will be some third way in
    the country that provides an alternative to these two polar
    political movements.
        Mr. Gershman. Congressman, you wanted a short answer. So in
    Moldova and Ukraine, in addition to the Russian problem, the
    critical problem is corruption, and we have to work to support
    groups who are fighting corruption from the grass roots.
        Otherwise, those countries are going to lose population
    because nobody will invest and people will leave and that's
    happening even right now.
        In Georgia, I would only add one point. We are doing a lot
    of work right now with a group that's working with the Georgian
    Church--the orthodox church--and they brought a lot of these
    orthodox priests here, along with Muslim and Catholic leaders
    as well, last November. I think it's extremely important to
    work with the church, to see that they're connected to Europe
    and connected to the United States.
        This is a very important thing we can do, and I hope that
    when they come again--because they may be coming again--that
    they can come up to the Congress and meet with you because the
    church in Georgia I think is a kind of a central institution
    that could lean to the East but also is now being connected to
    the West.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you very much. I yield back. I will yield
    back. We are out of time.
        Mr. Wollack. One positive development I would say in
    Moldova at the grass roots you have hundreds of mayors right
    now who represent the new reform movement and I think change--I
    think positive change can come from the bottom up.
        Chairman Royce. Lois Frankel from Florida.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
    for being here and for your work.
        And I just want to start out by saying that I believe in
    our democracy and what you're doing. I think we always have to
    be mindful of protecting our own democracy.
        We have some flaws--the money in politics. We had a flawed
    ballot in Florida. A few years ago I think we had a FBI
    director who interfered in the last election.
        I mean, these are issues that we have to deal with, and I
    think something that I just have to raise today, and I don't
    know if you want to comment, is what we are doing on the
    border, pulling children out of the arms of families and then
    putting children in cages, parents not having any contact with
    their children for months, to me is abominable and just it goes
    against everything that I know I was raised to believe about a
    great country.
        And I am going to ask you if you want to comment on that.
    Does anyone want to comment on that?
        Mr. Twining. Congresswoman, I would just say as a dad that
    I just think about the conditions in Central America in
    particular that motivate parents to try to come to the United
    States and how desperate they are because of conditions at the
    source and how our work, hopefully, can impact that.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
        And I know we've put you in an awkward situation. You're
    trying to get funding from a government where if you look
    awkwardly at the President he'll cut you off at the knees.
        Anyway, I don't depend on my funding from him so I can say
    what I want, and I think his policy at the border is, as I
    said, is a disgrace to our country.
        Anyway, I will move right along to my next subject, which
    is that I think it's quite obvious that you can't just drop
    ballot boxes around the world and say oh, come on, have a free
    election.
        There must be infrastructure in place. Actually, it could
    even be a road, right. It could be water supply. It could be
    education, health care, projects that give people confidence in
    a government that's going in the correct direction.
        And what I would like to hear, if you could, is comment on
    the importance of us having, I would say, a global policy that,
    again, cuts to the State Department where you cut USAID or
    money to NGOs that help provide the infrastructure to
    democracies as related to what you are fighting for.
        Mr. Gershman. This is bread and butter of what we do, of
    course.
        I would just add, agreeing with what you just said--the
    issue of free media, which has been of critical importance.
        Mr. Wollack. People are in a demanding mood. They want to
    put food on their table and they want the right to have a
    political voice in a country, and they're not going to give up
    either one.
        And so, therefore, there is a responsibility to respond to
    that by the institutions in those countries and they deserve
    and expect and support outside assistance, particularly at
    these critical times.
        People talk about sequencing--that somehow people have to
    have a certain level of education or the society has to build a
    middle class before they can have fundamental political and
    human rights.
        That's really not the case. I mean, people, demand both,
    and we have to respond to both of those desires on the part of
    people and they both reinforce each other.
        Ms. Frankel. One more point that I would like to make,
    because I am going to run out of time, I think one or two of
    you--I think maybe it was Mr. Wollack, you gave what I believe
    is a very good presentation--part of your presentation on the
    role of women and the importance of empowering women to have
    democracy.
        And just, you know, what I have seen, not only in this
    country but around the world is we have an administration that
    is trying to, I will say, disempower women in every way
    possible.
        Let me give one specific example in terms of the rest of
    the world, which is the expansion of the gag rule, which now
    has basic--and cutting off funding to the U.N. Population Fund,
    and cutting of health care.
        Not--we are not talking about cutting off abortion just--we
    are talking about cutting off health care to women all over the
    world, and organizations that fight child marriage and
    trafficking and so forth.
        I would like to hear a comment on that.
        And what I see are blank stares, and I think it's very
    unfortunate because if you think you're going to get democracy
    in the world, we better empower the women.
        And maybe next time we'll have some women over there so I
    don't get a blank stare when I ask that question.
        Chairman Royce. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Frankel. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Would the gentlelady acknowledge we do a
    fair number of presentations--witnesses before this committee
    where we actively--myself and Mr. Engel--try to get expertise
    from women?
        It is just a situation right now where the chairman of the
    NED and the IRI and NDI are male. And so I am just trying to--
    --
        Mr. Wollack. All I would say, Congressman----
        Chairman Royce. Yes.
        Mr. Wollack [continuing]. Is that one of the major efforts
    of, I think, all of these institutions is to dedicate resources
    and global efforts to promote women's political empowerment so
    there are sufficient women in office at all levels so they can
    address issues like that so these institutions can address
    issues like that.
        We generally don't go in and take positions on policy
    issues. But if sufficient women are in positions of political
    power and the only way they're going to do that in
    parliamentary systems is the gateway of political parties and
    they have to reform, and if women can get in those political
    positions those issues will be addressed by these institutions.
        Ms. Frankel. And thank you. First, I want to say about our
    chairman, he has absolutely been terrific in terms of trying to
    advance women's rights all over the world, and I want to thank
    you for that.
        And I know you can't help who's the head of these agencies
    and no disrespect to the three of you. But I think this is just
    an example, again, of why it's so important to have women at
    the table.
        Chairman Royce. Which----
        Ms. Frankel. As some people say, otherwise you're going to
    be on the menu, and I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. But as----
        Mr. Wollack. Well, at NDI we have a woman at the head of
    our table and that's Madeline Albright. So----
        Chairman Royce. Yes. So one of the things we've tried to do
    in the committee to address this is we have a women's series of
    hearings, and part of our goal on the committee is to get
    governments around the world to focus on this.
        So but I need to go to Mr. Tom Garrett of Virginia.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Very briefly, I take marginal umbrage insofar as I believe
    that one who seeks to advance an agenda, whether it's
    empowerment of women globally or any other agenda, will take
    their friends where they can find them and not make political
    points by virtue of the fact that you all happen to each, I
    think, identify as male.
        Having said that, what I mean is I have worked with great
    joy with my distinguished colleague, Ms. Frankel, to empower
    women globally and said repeatedly that I believe that an
    empowered educated economically-thriving class of women across
    the world will reduce radicalism and reduce conflict and
    increase economic opportunity, and I happen to agree with this
    President most of the time.
        So take your friends where you find them, because we are on
    the same team on this one. Having said that, it frustrates me
    to know end--I think the chairman might pull his hair out by
    virtue of my repeated reference of the Vandenberg quote from
    1948 that politics should stop at the water's edge.
        And I heard criticism of this administration as it related
    to the discourse that occurred in Singapore by virtue of the
    fact that there was a failure to mention human rights
    violations in North Korea.
        I would ask you, Mr. Wollack, is there anything we can do
    about human rights violations that have already occurred in
    North Korea--the ones that have already occurred. Can we stop
    them?
        If a human rights violation occurred last year in North
    Korea, is anything that was said in Singapore be influential in
    changing that fact? That's an obvious question and answer.
        Mr. Wollack. I don't know the answer.
        Mr. Garrett. Well, I think probably if it's already
    occurred, unless we have a time machine about which you and I--
    you know that I don't, it can't be changed, right?
        But can we do anything to change human rights violations in
    North Korea, moving forward--those human rights violations that
    have not yet occurred?
        Mr. Twining.
        Mr. Twining. Yes. You know, I would say if this negotiating
    process leads to a more open North Korea that creates all sorts
    of new opportunities.
        Mr. Garrett. Having said that, let me ask you the same
    question. Can we change human rights violations that have
    already occurred? Is that possible in the world in which we
    live, sir?
        Okay. And so let me ask you this----
        Mr. Gershman. If I may, Congressman.
        Mr. Garrett. Well, I have a finite amount of time. I won't
    get extra time because I am a new guy and I am about to be out
    of here in January 2019.
        So, Mr. Gershman, with all due respect, I will get to you
    in a second. I have a good friend who I've worked with a number
    of months, back when I was in a different mode, who's in the
    military in South Korea and I was excited at the prospect of a
    detente, if you will, with the North Koreans.
        I would ask Mr. Gershman is the probability of kinetic
    armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula lower or higher, in your
    estimation, than it was in December 2016, today, right now?
        Mr. Gershman. It's very hard. It depends on how the
    negotiations go. But when----
        Mr. Garrett. Right this second, is the probability of
    kinetic conflict lower or higher?
        Mr. Gershman. Right this second? Probably lower. Probably
    lower.
        Mr. Garrett. Mr. Twining, would you say it's lower than it
    was in December 2016?
        Mr. Twining. Lower.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. And is the probability of a North Korean
    ballistic missile launch lower or higher than it was, say, 1
    year ago, Mr. Wollack--today?
        Mr. Wollack. I would say yes.
        Mr. Garrett. It's lower?
        Mr. Wollack. Yes.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. And Mr. Gershman, is the probability of
    a North Korean nuclear test lower or higher than it was, say,
    18, 24 months ago?
        Mr. Gershman. Of course it's lower.
        Mr. Garrett. Okay. And so as a result of these things,
    while this negotiation is far from complete, and I would submit
    that the North Korean regime from 1950 has a history of making
    a promise and then breaking a promise, as evidenced by the
    gaming of President Clinton, who I think had very good
    intentions in the 1990s when he strode to a microphone and said
    this North Korea nuclear deal--sound familiar--ends the
    possibility of nuclear conflagration stemming from the Korean
    Peninsula--and I think he meant it--but we know that we need to
    do what I think President Reagan said and that is trust but
    verify.
        Does that sound like an accurate course of action summary
    moving forward with North Korea?
        But we are somewhere where we were not before and I would
    ask you, Mr. Twining--am I pronouncing that correct? Twining--I
    apologize.
        Do you believe that it undermines U.S. foreign policy as it
    relates to the Article 2 powers of the executive branch to
    engage in foreign policy treaties, et cetera, when there are
    435 critics in the House and 100 critics in the Senate who
    immediately go contra, in some instances reflexively, to
    whatever comes from the executive branch?
        Do you think that might undermine the credibility of the
    negotiating power of the executive branch?
        Mr. Twining. Congress is going to have to do sanctions
    relief and fund assistance to North Korea if that comes.
        I worked in the 1990s for John McCain and we were trying to
    defund the KEDO framework because we knew North Korea was
    cheating.
        So there is a congressional----
        Mr. Garrett. And so we have an ability--I would close
    with--and a responsibility that I think this committee
    generally, across the aisle, does a good job with to be a check
    on executive power by virtue of speaking when we are in
    disagreement.
        However, the reflexive disagreement with an administration
    whose near-term goals may seem antithetical to our long-term
    goals may in fact undermine the accomplishment of the
    collective long-term goal which I would argue in the case of my
    distinguished colleagues across the aisle, myself and the
    President of the United States is peace, stability, and global
    opportunity--that the path we choose from point A to point B
    may vary, but that our overarching goal is very similar.
        So with that, I see that my time has expired. I thank the
    chairman and the distinguished members of the committee and
    conclude my remarks.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Garrett.
        We go to Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to our witnesses, not only for being here but for
    the important work that you're leading.
        I think we all recognize that promoting freedom and
    democracy and protecting human rights is a very important
    pillar of our work around the world and a very critical part of
    America's leadership, and as Mr. Gershman said, it's not only
    morally the right thing to do but it's the smart thing to do
    because it advances the interests of our country.
        And I think there's always been bipartisan support and
    understanding of that basic principle that democracies are more
    resilient, they're more stable, they produce better economic
    conditions and better advance the well-being of all people.
        And I think in particular, to respond directly to Mr.
    Garrett, I think this is actually a moment where Congress has a
    particularly special responsibility to assert itself in
    promoting democracy and human rights around the world in the
    face of what the administration is doing.
        And so I want to just spend 1 second on what Mr. Deutch and
    Mr. Keating had started to focus on, and that is what is the
    practical impact of an American President who is cozying up to
    despotic leaders who's praising authoritarian leadership around
    the world, strongmen? What kind of signal does that send to
    those who are fighting to advance democracy in very hard places
    around the world? The lack of meaningful oversight of the
    corruption of this administration where corruption is such a
    problem in countries that have emerging democracies or
    repressive governments?
        I am just wondering, as a practical matter, as people are
    working in various places around the world, what are people
    saying about the impact of the American--this administration
    engaged in those activities, engaged in that kind of behavior?
    Is it making the work more difficult? What's their assessment
    of it?
        And, obviously, Congress has a role to respond to it. We
    are doing our best to raise our voices. But there has to be
    some understanding of what the implications are for the people
    doing the work.
        Mr. Twining. Sir, I would just say I personally use it as
    an example--democracy is never done, right. We've been at it
    for 200 years. We are still working on it.
        When I go out into the world I talk about our system of
    checks and balances, our system of congressional oversight, our
    system of federalism, so that most Americans are actually not
    being governed from Washington, DC, but by their mayors and
    state legislatures and governors, et cetera.
        So democracy looks different in every country. But I
    actually think we can take some of the lessons about
    separation, et cetera, into the world.
        Mr. Wollack. I would say that it doesn't make our work
    measurably more difficult. As I said, I think people
    compartmentalize.
        WE don't go overseas to preach the American model and to
    tell people that they have to support everything that we do in
    the United States.
        We work internationally. We have international partners. We
    are part of a, really, a democratic solidarity network.
        But I think the people we work with always want strong
    American leadership. They believe in strong American leadership
    and they would want the United States to speak out on behalf of
    democracy and human rights.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        Mr. Gershman, I am going to ask you to incorporate your
    response, if you haven't, to my second area that I really want
    to get to, and that is the current conditions in Burma.
        I had the opportunity to be there last November to visit
    the Rohingya in Indonesia and to visit Myanmar, and I am
    wondering what we could be doing better to support democratic
    governance and economic development.
        On the one hand, the discrimination and the near genocide
    of the Rohingya is something which is repulsive and contrary to
    all of our human rights views and human decency.
        And it has been very disturbing to watch the Aung San Suu
    Kyi government actively really obfuscate and really attempt to
    deny this ethnic cleansing.
        And just wondering what actions we should be taking to
    address these challenges of democratic consultation and
    economic instability in Burma while at the same time making it
    very clear to the world that we understand these atrocities
    are--cannot continue and that the individuals responsible for
    it must be held accountable and it must stop.
        And I am just wondering if you have suggesting how we
    should balance that. And then my last question, which I would
    ask anyone to comment, is suggestions on what we should be
    doing in Poland and Hungary where we are seeing very
    significant sliding human rights in free press and I think very
    challenging on many, many levels and love to hear your thoughts
    on both those things.
        Mr. Gershman. Those are such large and difficult questions
    but--and I want to emphasize NED is not a policy organization
    but, obviously, Congress has to grapple with the issue of
    sanctions on Burma, given what's happened, and it's a very
    important question.
        I realize there may be differences between the House and
    the Senate but that's something that has to be worked out.
        On Poland and Hungary, look, we understand these are
    problems--these are countries that are members of the EU. There
    are pressures in these countries especially on independent
    media and political opposition.
        These are the deeply divided countries. But in a sense, we
    can understand that democracy itself is imperiled today around
    the world and these are problems that we have to deal with.
        These are countries with which we are friendly and I think
    we have to be able to talk with these countries and not assume
    that they're inevitably going to go in this direction.
        These are still democratic countries and they still have
    independent media and political oppositions and we have to hope
    that they will move forward.
        I am not going to get to the other questions because the
    congressman has left. I will end there.
        Mr. Cicilline. You can just finish the answer even if
    he's----
        Mr. Gershman. Well, let me just say one other thing on your
    first question regarding the statements made.
        Nobody that we support is giving up. In other words, I want
    to leave you and others with the understanding--with the
    knowledge that there are dynamic forces on the ground in all
    these countries that we connect to that are energized.
        Now, they may be discouraged if there are statements made
    that suggest where the United States stands. But that could
    also encourage people to realize that they've got to take their
    future into their own hands and be more self-reliant, which is
    also something which can be positive.
        But this is not stopping--I think the Congressman who
    talked about the aspirations of people for freedom and
    democracy. That is true around the world, and I think it's, in
    a way, the reason--the central reason why the National
    Endowment for Democracy and its institutes are successful
    institutions and can accomplish great things with relatively
    limited resources, because we are not imposing anything.
        We are not asking people to do anything that they don't
    want to do. We are supporting their own aspirations and giving
    them some of the tools to realize those aspirations, and I
    think it should not be forgotten NED was created as an
    independent institution so that even when you have problems,
    whatever the problems are with the executive branch, our work
    continues consistently, and I think that was a brilliant idea
    and it's in the National Endowment for Democracy Act adopted by
    the Congress by Dante Fascell in 1983, and I think it was
    brilliant to give the NED that kind of independence so that we
    can go forward, regardless of what the policies of the
    executive branch are at any particular time.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Royce. Brad Schneider, Illinois.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, and I want to thank the chairman
    and the ranking member for holding this critically important
    hearing.
        I want to thank the witnesses, first, for your patience
    staying here this morning, for your work and commitment to
    democracy here and around the world--for your passion and for
    your optimism. It's been refreshing to be here this morning
    with you at a challenging time.
        Mr. Gershman, in your remarks and written testimony you
    referenced that Freedom House, for the past 12 consecutive
    years has said there's been a decline in civil and political
    rights.
        My first set of questions are around this and anyone can
    feel free to respond. But what do you see as the key drivers of
    that decline? Within the context of U.S. policy, what are the
    risks to the United States? What are the opportunities for the
    United States? What are our responsibilities?
        And I guess the third is how do you see or what do you see
    the United States role should be in reversing that decline and
    making sure the democracy that we as a Nation have held so dear
    and worked to perfect over the entire course of our history has
    the opportunity to take hold and prosper around the world,
    which will also benefit the United States?
        Mr. Gershman. Well, Congressman, the problems of both
    external, meaning resurgent authoritarianism, and we've heard a
    lot about that today, and internal democracy is difficult, and
    countries have problems of corruption.
        Elites can be divorced from their people. These are
    difficult things, and the Freedom House survey is a reflection
    of the troubles that we've seen in the world.
        But I think it's important to point out that the total
    number of democracies in the world mushroomed after what
    Professor Sam Huntington called the third wave of
    democratization, from about 70 to 125, which is quite
    remarkable, and we are still having, in a sense, problems
    absorbing these changes.
        Huntington also predicted what he called a reverse wave,
    the first waves of democratization were followed by the rise of
    Nazism and communism in the 1920s and 1930s, the breakdown of
    democracy in the 1960s and the 1970s, the rise of military
    dictatorships. You then have the third wave, and in a way, a
    reverse--we don't even know if it's a reverse wave but what
    they call a recession--whether this was an inevitable part of
    the process and what I guess what I was saying in my testimony,
    Congressman, I don't want to be a Pollyannaish optimist but I
    do see signs that are taking place now in a number of different
    countries around the world which could indicate that maybe some
    change is in the offing.
        When Reagan gave his Westminster speech it was in 1982. It
    was a bad time. It was right after the crackdown in Poland,
    right after the invasion of Afghanistan. We were still reeling
    from Vietnam.
        Sandinistas had taken over in Central America, and Reagan
    said in that speech in 1982, 10 years before Huntington wrote
    the book on the third wave, that a democratic revolution was
    gathering strength in the world.
        That's quite remarkable. And so now it's a bad period. I
    don't know but it's not out of the question that a democratic
    revolution is gathering strength even as we are looking at all
    the negative problems.
        Mr. Schneider. I pray you're right.
        Mr. Twining, I don't know if you want to expand, or Mr.
    Wollack, you had earlier.
        Mr. Twining. When I think about the youth bulge in key
    parts of the world, I think only a democratic structure inside
    countries is going to be able to handle digitally empowered
    kids with smart phones who want to be politically active and
    shake their countries' future.
        I grew up in Africa as a diplomatic kid in the '80s in the
    era of strongmen, and all the Africans I meet today, when I
    travel to Africa none of them wants to live in a country run by
    a strongman, right.
        They want to have a voice and a choice and be active and
    engaged. That gives me great hope.
        Mr. Schneider. We had a hearing here yesterday about the
    Middle East and the explosion of the youth there, because the
    demographics are so important in that context. We need to make
    sure these kids have hope, that they have opportunity that
    takes us beyond here.
        Mr. Wollack, let me just wish you well in your retirement.
    We are going to miss you, but give you the last word.
        Mr. Wollack. I would just say when President Reagan gave
    that speech, when you look at the world at that time, Latin
    America was dominated by military regimes. You had military
    governments in Bangladesh and Pakistan and South Korea, martial
    law in Taiwan, absolute monarchy in Nepal, Communist government
    in Mongolia, dictatorships in Philippines and Indonesia.
        The lexicon of democracy had not even entered the Middle
    East. Soviet Communism had reached the borders of western
    Europe.
        It was pretty bleak at the time, and so one has to look at
    this with some degree of perspective and perhaps a longer arc
    of history, and when we see things that take place on the
    ground in places like Malaysia and Armenia and Nicaragua and
    Slovakia and Guatemala, we see today not only movements on the
    ground but also you have an international architecture on
    democracy.
        You know, intergovernmental organizations at that time had
    nonintervention clauses--the OAS, the African Union. Now they
    have intervened in member states.
        So I tend to look at this as a glass half full and we may
    be talking differently 10 years from now.
        Mr. Schneider. And that's why I reflected on the optimism.
    I will close with this.
        My entire life but, really, the entire history of our
    country we have been a light to the other nations--a beacon of
    hope to people around the world, and I think if we are going to
    see democracy flourish around the world it's imperative that
    the United States continues to be that.
        I am going to close with repeating what Mr. Gershman had in
    his remarks but it's President Reagan's words--the ultimate
    determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world
    will not be the bombs and rockets but the test of will and
    ideas--our ideas, if you will--a trial of spiritual resolve,
    which I think we have, and the values we all in this room hold,
    the belief we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated,
    and I hope as Democrats and Republicans we can stick to those
    ideals. We can stand strong and we can be that beacon to the
    rest of the world.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
        Mr. Twining, for the record, I don't want to live in a
    country with a strongman either, and I wish Mr. Garrett, my
    colleague from Virginia, was still here. I find it less than
    amusing to hear a friend from the other side of the aisle
    lecture us about criticism of a President's foreign policy
    because all differences should end at the shores.
        That certainly has not been the ethos on this committee.
    When it came to President Obama, whether it would be Syria or
    Yemen or Middle East policy or Israel policy or the Iran
    nuclear agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the
    climate change accord in Paris, my friends on the other side of
    the aisle were quite reflexively critical.
        That's their right. But we are now going to exercise our
    right and we will not be lectured about it because, frankly,
    now is the time to be speaking up and being heard, given the
    fact that there are threats to our own democracy.
        And I very much appreciate the chairman having today's
    hearing because there are connections between our values and
    whether we are living up to them and what we are trying to help
    other countries do.
        And I applaud the IRI and the NDI and, of course, NED for
    your efforts. I've had the privilege of travelling through the
    auspices of the House Democracy Project to a number of
    countries and, frankly, the work both organizations are doing
    on the ground is so exciting.
        You have mobilized young people, older people, to actually
    express themselves and put their bodies on the line for
    democratic values, in their own cultural setting, and you have
    done it well, and it makes you proud as an American to see the
    work of your folks on the ground.
        I wish more of my colleagues could see it because it
    reaffirms our faith in ourselves but also the aspirations of so
    many people all over the world, and I think it also reaffirms
    the fact that democracy is not cultural-bound.
        It is a universal desire. It has different expressions. But
    everybody wants to be free. Everybody wants to be liberated
    from the yolk of a strongman and to express themselves as they
    see fit, and nothing does America prouder than the work,
    frankly, you are doing.
        And I don't mean to sound too gushy about it. But if you
    see it on the ground and hundreds and hundreds of people
    responding to that call in their own cultural and political
    context, I think there is a wellspring of democratic yearning.
        But we as a country--we, the beacon of that democratic
    ideal--we've got to be consistent in our own democratic values
    because when we stray from them, we damage the work you're
    doing and your folks are doing on the ground.
        Mr. Gershman, we are looking at the fiscal year 2019
    international affairs budget, which would cut democracy
    promotion by more than half and cut assistance to the National
    Endowment for Democracy from $170 million to $67 million.
        Earlier, you testified it would have a devastating impact
    and you'd have to dismantle programs. I want to give you an
    opportunity to elaborate a little bit.
        Mr. Gershman. It's hard for me to imagine, frankly, how we
    could function under those circumstances, and I could name
    countries where we couldn't work but----
        Mr. Connolly. Well, why don't we do that?
        Mr. Gershman [continuing]. The organization would be
    devastated.
        Mr. Connolly. Are there countries--I remember a few years
    ago, working with some friends on international democracy and
    just the threat of budget cutbacks required them to close down
    programs all over Bangladesh, for example.
        Mr. Gershman. Right. And we pride ourselves in
    understanding that the work is long-term work. Democracy
    doesn't come quickly and you have to stay at it with people
    year after year and you build up knowledgeable teams of
    people--deeply knowledgeable teams of people who know how to
    work with the institutes and with the NED.
        If you cut that it just unravels the whole thing.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, let's just--my last remaining time here
    I want to focus on here. It has lasting harm, does it not, in
    both credibility and our commitment to them--there are people
    putting their lives on the line----
        Mr. Gershman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Connolly [continuing]. In fighting for democracy in
    their particular countries, and if we pull the plug because of
    budget fears or actual budget cuts, what happens to them?
        Mr. Gershman. No. I mean, they're dependent on the support
    that they get in so many different ways.
        They're going to continue. But I think we are able to
    really help them--give them solidarity, give them technical
    support, give them financial support.
        It's a lifeline to them, and they say it all the time--you
    withdraw that, it's a devastating blow to them. They're not
    going to leave the scene. They're going to continue to fight.
    But it's a devastating blow.
        Mr. Connolly. And final point--if you're an authoritarian
    regime looking askance at that activity because you see it as a
    threat to your centralization and control, the imprimatur of
    the United States behind that NGO activity matters, does it
    not? And withdrawing it, effectively, actually makes them prey
    to that authoritarian regime.
        Mr. Gershman. That's true, and that's why I said in my
    statement when I said, you know, the support of the American
    people, I take pride in the fact that when we make grants to
    groups abroad, I take pride that it's with American taxpayer
    money.
        We try to protect that money. We try to make sure that
    every single dollar is spent well. But I take pride in the fact
    that that's a demonstration of the support coming from the
    American people.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, one final point. I want to thank Mr. Wollack.
    I know he's retiring. He's made an extraordinary contribution
    to democracy all over the world.
        And as he said, there were times it all looked bleak, and
    hanging in there and never giving up and giving it his all, I
    just want to tell Mr. Wollack how much all of us appreciate
    that, and I know there are people all over the world you're
    never going to meet who also appreciate it.
        You have made a lasting contribution, and I know your voice
    won't be stilled. You're going to be in a different capacity.
    But Ken, thank you for all you have done.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Norma Torres of
    California.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and the ranking
    member for bringing us together for this very important meeting
    and thank the three of you for doing such great work in
    representing American values abroad and ensuring that you are
    building up, as you put it, knowledgeable teams of people
    around the world that can stand up for themselves and stand up
    for the injustices that their government bring upon their
    communities or their countries.
        And that is why I want to associate myself with some of the
    comments that were stated earlier about women--what is going on
    right here at our southern border.
        When a government decides that it is an important policy to
    rip away a baby that is nursing from its mother and that that
    is good policy, we have to challenge that.
        And this is all I have to challenge that. So as a woman, I
    hope that the members of this committee stand up and look at
    their own families and see themselves as that person seeking
    refuge at our border and how would they feel if they would be
    separated and torn apart.
        There was one person already that committed suicide out of
    desperation. This is not the American values that you fight for
    abroad.
        We talked about earlier about the number of women in
    elected office. Less than 25 percent of women are in elected
    office worldwide, except for the case of Spain, where the
    Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, appointed the majority
    of his ministry 11 women, I believe--11 women and six men. So
    that brings up their percentage of female representatives to
    64.7 percent. Kudos to him.
        Now, here in the U.S., this administration as inspired
    women all over the country to run for local office and the
    majority of--or more than half of those women running in those
    elected positions have won.
        But we have organizations such as Emily's List that helps
    to fill the gap and support women where there is no support--
    where we don't find the support that we need in, one, raising
    the money that we need; two, getting the support that we need
    to get into local offices.
        Are there other organizations like Emily's List globally
    that we can point to and help support to ensure that females
    have a rightful place in the world as we do here in the U.S.?
        Mr. Wollack. The answer is yes. There are groups in
    Liberia--that 50/50 group. There are groups in Mexico. All the
    countries we work there are women's organizations that train
    other women to compete, to run, to be campaign managers, to be
    candidates, and in many of these places our organizations
    support their efforts.
        Ms. Torres. Well, thank you for doing that. I want to urge
    you to continue to do that as well as working with civil
    societies. My work has been primarily focused in Central
    America.
        The work of civil society there in the Northern Triangle is
    critical. CICIG has been under attack. The former attorney
    general there has been under attack.
        MACCIH in Honduras has been under attach. So what more can
    we do to help these institutions move forward with the good
    work that they're doing and how can we help you help them?
        Mr. Gershman. Well, thank you so much, Congresswoman. I am
    very moved by what you said and it's also been wonderful to get
    to know you, and thank you for presenting the reward to Claudia
    Escobar last year--our democracy award--and she has been a
    leader, as you know, in the fight against corruption in
    Guatemala.
        The most important thing, I think, that we can do in the
    fight against corruption in the Northern Triangle is to support
    civil society and groups that are mobilizing against that, and
    we are supporting groups in Honduras and Guatemala that are
    combatting corruption and doing a number of different things.
        One of them is promoting political and electoral reforms.
    They're monitoring state spending both locally and nationally.
    They're providing reliable and digestible information about
    corruption to the people so their voice can be heard.
        They're engaged in projects to translate citizen protest
    and sow concrete political proposals for change. They're
    working to improve the transparency of the selection process
    for the attorney general in the three Northern Triangle
    countries and they're even in Guatemala trying now to create a
    network of businesses committed to anti-corruption efforts.
        And finally, working with the Central American Institute
    for Fiscal Studies, we are working to improve the knowledge and
    technical capacity of lawmakers on issues of fiscal
    responsibility.
        So it's a broad program and I think the critical thing we
    have to do is to support groups from the bottom up--put
    pressure on the governments not to be corrupt.
        Ms. Torres. Which--I just finally want to point to the work
    the IRI is doing to build up with the mayors--with the local
    mayors. I know a couple of years ago I had dinner with some of
    the mayors that you had here that you were training from, I
    believe, El Salvador.
        So I want to--as a former mayor, that work is critically
    important because these are the people that are on the front
    line as it relates to Mexican elections right now. These are
    the people that are losing their lives as candidates in trying
    to move a different agenda forward.
        Thank you so much for allowing me the extra time. I really
    appreciate you.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Torres. I am going to miss you miserably. I am just
    going to keep seeing that every meeting that we have.
        Chairman Royce. Well, Congresswoman Torres, thank you very
    much.
        And I--look, I really want to thank our witnesses here
    today because it's truly and exceptional panel that we have,
    and I am confident that all three of you will continue your
    major contributions to promoting democracy, your contributions
    to our Nation's interests for years to come.
        And I think the members of this committee learned from you
    an awful lot today, as we've heard your strong bipartisan
    support for democracy promotion, for the work of your
    organizations.
        We also heard of the grave challenges to democracy
    engineered by authoritarian regimes that are systematically
    attacking democratic societies.
        This committee will continue to do all it can through
    hearings and through legislation to combat these efforts. As
    Mr. Wollack noted, we as a country are just waking up to these
    challenges.
        They have to be met. So, again, thank you, Carl, Dan, Ken.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, would you--would yield to me.
        Chairman Royce. Let me yield to the gentleman from New
    York.
        Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you.
        I also want to, again, reiterate to our three guests how
    much we appreciate your testimony here but, more importantly,
    the work that you do day in and day out.
        We really do appreciate it, and I think you could see by
    the fact that so many members stayed or came back to make sure
    there was tremendous interest in having you here and in
    listening to what you have to say.
        So I want to, again, thank all of you for coming and we
    work very hard, the chairman and I, on this committee. We use
    the word bipartisan and we use that word because we think this
    is the most bipartisan committee in the entire Congress.
        And what better subject can there be when we are talking
    about bipartisanship than the work that you three gentleman do,
    where partisanship stops at the river's edge.
        It's so important with--dealing with all these
    international problems. And so, again, thank you for all your
    good work.
        Mr. Gershman, Mr. Twining, thank you, and Mr. Wollack, as I
    said before, good luck, and I don't know--you will have a lot
    of free time. You can come to our hearings here. We'll still
    work in a bipartisan fashion.
        And I just feel that everything that the three of you said
    was very important and I hope people are watching.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. And let's also acknowledge, Eliot, I think,
    contemplating the work and the risks that your associates all
    over the world, in countries all over this world are taking,
    for the goals that you're championing, that we are all--that we
    all believe in, that works needs to be acknowledged as well.
        The level of dedication of those out there in the field day
    in and day out. So thank you, and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]