[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 3 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: January 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe we are going to have a vote at
about 12:30. In fact, I do not know where the manager is, but I think
we are OK on the other side. I propound a unanimous consent--Mr.
President, I will withhold the unanimous consent request while we make
sure it is clear on both sides. I think it will be. Hopefully, I can
say to my colleagues, we will probably have a vote then at 12:30, and
then proceed with further amendments.
Mr. President, I would like to take a moment, if I may, to address
this question. I have worked with the good Senator from Arkansas on
trying to cut the space station, on trying to cut wool and mohair, on
trying to cut the superconductor super collider. I think we have joined
together in a good number of efforts to try to reduce spending. And I
applaud his efforts to try to find the problem areas where you ought to
cut. I regret that I do not join him on this one.
I cannot say that I agree, and I certainly do not feel that the
evidence suggests remotely, that NED is the kind of entity that ought
to be cut. In point of fact, the Foreign Relations Committee purposely
added extra money. We put it up at $50 million not because we were
trying to waste money, and we did this at the same time as we cut $504
million in our committee.
So we made life miserable for the State Department, we made life
miserable to the USIA. We forced them to cut personnel. We made real
cuts. But we decided against those cuts to add money to NED. That was
the conscious decision of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The reason for that is not because we want to throw money away but
because we are convinced, as are leaders of other countries, most, I
think, observers of the foreign policy scene, certainly foreign leaders
of significant distinction that we have looked to as heroes of the
effort to create democracy, like Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, who have
specifically written and have said do not cut NED, that NED has been an
important part of the democratization process in their countries. And
so it can be in other countries.
In point of fact, I would like to point to some of the examples of
ways in which NED made a difference. I think these examples are perhaps
not known to all of my colleagues.
I also point out--and my friend from Arkansas has some charts up
here. On the charts he has the amount of money we put into USIA, and
then he has the amount of money, about $296 million, that we put into
AID. Then you have this little amount, in an orange line, $30 million
that goes into NED.
My colleague makes a mistake to suggest that this is a comingling or
an intermingling of the efforts of these entities. NED specifically
does things that AID cannot do because AID as a Government agency is
not allowed to operate, for instance, in Burma. It is not allowed to
operate in Libya or in other countries. NED, on the other hand, as a
private organization is able to work in those areas.
So let me point out if I can for a moment a few of the examples of
the ways in which it would make a difference. I would like my
colleagues to spend a moment analyzing this.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Why do we not lock
in the vote at 12:30?
Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted.
Order of Procedure
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
vote on the motion to table at 12:30 p.m. with the time to be divided
equally between the distinguished minority representative and myself
and the Senator from Arkansas with no second-degree amendments.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to have time to speak for about 3 or 4 minutes in that agreement.
Mr. KERRY. How much time would the Senator from Arkansas like to have
reserved?
Mr. BUMPERS. Two more minutes by Senator Brown who should be here
momentarily and has asked for 10 minutes. I would like to reserve 12
minutes for our side. That would move the time for the vote. What did
the Senator from Arizona request?
Mr. McCAIN. Three minutes.
Mr. HELMS. That is agreeable with our side if you have 12 minutes
just so we go ahead and do it.
Mr. BUMPERS. The time agreement of 25 minutes from now with the time
to be equally divided.
Mr. KERRY. That would be fine; time equally divided, 25 minutes and
no second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that no interruption in the Senator's
remarks be shown in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Hearing no objection, that will be the order.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I will need.
Mr. President, I want to give you an example of the kind of thing
that NED is doing. For instance, the total amount for NED programs in
the Middle East last year was $1.5 million--$1.5 million for democracy
promotion in the entire region, the Arab Middle East, North Africa,
Turkey, and Iran. But we gave grants and worked in programs that
included the training of election monitors in Yemen, the conduct of a
survey of the evolving electoral process in Oman, a democracy education
center and a business education center in Egypt, a conflict resolution
center in Lebanon, a training program for Arab female workers in the
Maghreb, the publication by the Iran Teachers Association of a journal
on human rights and democracy, the conduct of opinion surveys in Jordan
tied to the transition process there, and the organization of a broad
dialog on democracy that brought together Americans and Arabs. All of
that for $1.5 million.
I ask my colleagues if they do not think, for the entire Middle East,
$1.5 million through a private organization to accomplish that is not
significant?
Here is another example: One project, according to the award-winning
author of the ``Republic of Fear and Cruelty and Silence,'' Samir al-
Khalil, said that it made it possible for Iraqi writers and human
rights activists to get thousands of pamphlets into Iraq, communicating
ideas which have been banned and sealed off from the populace.
``Reports still reach me,'' he said, ``of the affect of this kind of
work in creating a new and enriching climate of ideas on the issue of
democracy, toleration of difference, secularism and the imperative for
essential focus on human rights and the building of a new order in
Iraq.''
I ask my colleagues, would you rather have billions of dollars spent
and a whole collusion to free Kuwait and knock out Saddam Hussein, or
are we spending money intelligently to have somebody in Iraq, a writer,
who is fighting for democracy, saying that this made a critical
difference?
In the example of Burma, we spend a meager sum of $225,000. But the
Nobel peace laureate winner there said that money was critical in
funding the flow of information through the radio, and the democratic
forces of Burma have been able to achieve some progress and success,
which could make the difference between total victory and defeat.
I can go on to Russia and Ukraine, a whole host of examples, the
Baltic countries. We spend $1 million for all of China--$1 million, for
a quarter of the globe's population, goes through this organization.
Mr. President, we have a choice. AID cannot do this in many of these
countries. In fact, it is specifically prohibited as a consequence. AID
is prohibited from operating in Cuba and is prohibited from operating
in Libya. You cannot operate in Iraq. These are the very countries
where democratic reform is necessary, but AID cannot do it. NED can. So
I cannot think, unfortunately, of a more ill-advised discounting of the
value of the very thing we try to promote around the world.
You can turn to President Carter, who wrote us specifically. I ask
unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
June 30, 1993.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
To Senator John Kerry: I was dismayed to learn that the
U.S. House of Representatives voted on June 22 to cut all
funding of the National Endowment for Democracy. If
sustained, this action will hinder the commendable efforts of
the four institutes that were established with bipartisan
support 10 years ago. I have worked very closely with the
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in
Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Zambia and Paraguay, and
consider it a vital institution in assisting the peaceful
expansion of democracy throughout the world.
The work of the National Endowment for Democracy and its
affiliates in promoting civic education and the transition to
free market economics and pluralist democracies has proven to
be extremely cost-effective. The money spent in promoting
democracy is money saved in responding to civil conflicts.
At a time when Americans can speak with one voice in
support of the entitlement of all people to a democratic form
of government, it would send the opposite message if Congress
ended support for the very institutions that have been at the
forefront of this international effort. I urge you to support
the continued efforts of NED and the party institutes.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter.
Mr. KERRY. President Carter points out that the work of NED and its
affiliates, promoting education and transition to free markets, has
been extremely cost effective. And the money spent in promoting
democracy is money saved in responding to civil conflicts.
Vaclav Havel said:
The National Democratic Institute has been one of the first
supporting actors in the democratic revolution in our
country.
Benazir Bhutto says:
It is vital to the U.S. and the future of democracy for the
work of NDI to proceed.
Sali Berisha, President of Albania, said:
The elimination of NED will be a blow to the emergence of
democracy in many areas of the globe.
You have columnists such as George Will and A.M. Rosenthal agreeing,
and David Broder, all backers of NED, who point out that the cold war
might be over, but we need NED to continue.
And there are Yelena Bonner and Andrei Sakharov. The closing of the
endowment would pose a danger, or its limitation.
Fong Lizzie, a Chinese astrophysicist, who said:
The movements of many countries, including China, are
directly encouraged by NED's efforts.
Mr. President, this is not the time to cut NED. It is the time to add
to NED. It is the time to allow the President of the United States to
carry out the democratization effort that we spend billions of dollars
to support through the defense budget of this country.
I strongly urge my colleagues to listen to the words of the people
who themselves are struggling. Dr. Sein Win, the Prime Minister of the
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma wrote recently
that:
NED support has enabled the democratic forces of Burma to
achieve much progress and success.
I cannot think of a greater testimony than the people who put their
lives at risk in an effort to get democracy, who ask us to keep alive
this effort.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last year we had a similar debate along
these lines and I am happy to say that the Senate overwhelmingly voted
in favor of continued funding of the National Endowment for Democracy.
So I am not going to go over all of those. I congratulate my colleague
from Massachusetts who did not state his views, but that of people who
are struggling for democracy and freedom throughout the world.
We have learned in the post-cold-war euphoria that, unfortunately, we
still live in a very dangerous and unstable world. In fact, one of the
organizations that monitor free and not-free and partially free nations
has determined, unfortunately, that there are more people in the world
that are less free today than a year ago. And the prospects for
repression and oppression by governments throughout the world and their
peoples, unfortunately, is more likely than unlikely.
What puzzles me, Mr. President, is that this is the one organization
that receives the accolades and the appreciation of people throughout
the world. We do not get this kind of appreciation from Yelena Bonner
and the President of Albania, and others, for the traditional United
States assistance programs. I never see or hear that. Yet, this amount
of money is ferociously attacked by the Senator from Arkansas, who, I
might say as an aside, has supported many projects in his own State,
which I could spend hours attacking as being unnecessary and, frankly,
pork barrel spending. But this organization is attacked with ferocity.
Is it because we do not want the free enterprise system to work in
these countries? Do we think the traditional aid programs do work, when
we know for a fact that many of them do not?
The countryside of Africa is littered with massive projects that were
funded by United States tax dollars and now sit rusting somewhere, when
their overall impact in the view of experts is that it not only is not
helpful, but disastrous in some cases because it distorted the
economies of these countries.
So, it is puzzling to me why the one program that seems to be
supported by the people whose lives it has touched throughout the world
from Burma to Albania to the Ukraine, from large countries to small,
that this should be under this ferocious attack. I do not even want to
mention the fact about how much money it is compared to the overall
programs and all that. But why in the world can we not accept the view
of the people who have been on the front line and are on the front
line, the leader of the dissidents in Burma and the physicist in China.
I ask my colleagues simply to look at the record; just look at the
record and do not take my word for it, do not take the word of the
Senator from Massachusetts--although I think our opinions obviously
should be considered--take the word of the people who are involved in
the struggle for freedom and democracy, and the ideals and principles
that look to the United States of America as their beacon of hope and
freedom and what this program has done for them. Then I think it will
be very doubtful as to the outcome of this vote. And maybe, just for 1
year, we could go on to other issues that are far more important and,
frankly, should consume the time of this body, as opposed to this
almost annual battle in which we are beginning to engage. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that an article
from the September 20, 1993 edition of the Nation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Blitz to Save the N.E.D.
(By David Corn)
Don't believe all that guff about partisanship in
Washington. Democrats and Republicans gleefully cast aside
interparty bickering and gridlock when it came time to vote
for the National Endowment for Democracy--a cold war-inspired
foundation that dispenses taxpayer dollars to the Democratic
and Republican parties, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Chamber of
Commerce, and other groups engaging in supposed democracy-
building activity abroad. When the N.E.D.'s existence was
recently threatened, members of Washington's elite rushed to
save an entity embraced by both parties.
In June, Representative Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania
Democrat, led the House in a surprising vote in favor of
killing a $50 million appropriation for the N.E.D., which
covered President Clinton's request for a 60 percent boost in
the N.E.D. budget. Then the hurricane of consensus hit, as
the political class went into overdrive. Its Bigfoot friends
in the media--George Will, David Broder, Morton Kondracke,
Abe Rosenthal, the Washington Post editorial page--pilloried
Kanjorski and praised the N.E.D. as the greatest governmental
initiative since the Louisiana Purchase. None of these grand
thumbsuckers bothered to address Kanjorski's main point: U.S.
foreign policy should not be developed and implemented by
private groups financed with taxpayers' money. And while they
piously trumpeted the cause of democracy and the N.E.D.'s
ostensible contribution to it--the endowment has funded a few
worthwhile electoral and human rights monitoring projects--
the pundits ignored the myriad problems that have plagued the
neoconservative-dominated institution: inadequate oversight,
pork-barrel grants and politically loaded decision making.
The Clinton Administration also rushed to preserve the
N.E.D. As the Senate considered what to do about the
endowment, Tim Wirth, counselor at the State Department, and
Anthony Lake, the National Security Adviser, not only called
senators to make the case for the endowment but also lobbied
Congressional aides. Since such pooh-bahs rarely deal with
mere staffers, their entreaties signaled an all-out campaign.
Walter Mondale, a past N.E.D. board member, telephonically
buttonholed legislators, and Lane Kirkland, head of the
A.F.L.-C.I.O. and a current board member, rang up his Senate
friends to plead for N.E.D. money. Wirth called Hank Brown, a
Republican and a leading N.E.D. critic in the Senate, and
told him that although he had voted with Brown against the
N.E.D. years ago in the House, he had undergone a conversion.
Brown was unmoved.
The White House's campaign was complemented by heavy
lobbying from notable Republicans. The party's N.E.D. fans
circulated a letter from Ronald Reagan, who created the
N.E.D. Frank Fahrenkopf, a former, G.O.P. chairman and
onetime N.E.D. officer, worked the phones. Senators Richard
Lugar and Orrin Hatch, respectively present and past board
members, pressed colleagues. So did Senator John McCain,
chairman of the International Republican Institute, which
receives funding from the N.E.D. During the ensuing debate--
several hours on the floor of the Senate--no one questioned
whether it was a conflict of interest for senators to lobby
for funds for a private organization to which they have an
official connection.
With the exception of the $500 billion deficit-reduction
plan, Capitol Hill had not been hit by such an intense
onslaught this term--and for what is by Washington standards
very small change. But it is money that underwrites the
power-machers of Washington and their friends. Compare the
White House flurry to save the N.E.D. with its actions
regarding funds for U.N. peacekeeping forces. Congress has
declined to fund President Clinton's 1993 supplemental
request for $293 million for the peacekeeping program and
knocked 33 percent off his 1994 request for $620 million. How
did the White House respond? With barely a peep. Tony Lake
did not call staff members. Wirth issued no noticeable
protest.
In late July, a bipartisan avalanche overwhelmed N.E.D.
opponents in the Senate. As Dale Bumpers offered an amendment
to pull the plug on the N.E.D., he proclaimed, ``Here is
living proof that all the wasteful spending in the U.S.
Congress is not on entitlements. . . . Here we have this
program which is just one junket after another, always
meddling in the internal affairs of another country.'' He
lost 74 to 23--with prominent liberals (Paul Wellstone, John
Kerry, Tom Harkin, Edward Kennedy, Carol Moseley-Braun)
joining leading conservatives (Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm,
Trent Lott) to save an outfit that has funded right-wing
think tanks abroad, subsidized neocon publications and
allowed Democratic and Republican Party activists to rack up
frequent-flier miles. The Senate appropriated $35 million for
the endowment. Now a House and Senate conference must
negotiate what the N.E.D. will or won't get. Most likely, it
will receive an amount closer to $35 million than zero.
Bumpers, Brown and Kanjorski--all hardy souls--would have an
easier time moving the Washington Monument than stopping the
N.E.D. juggernaut.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I tell you why we may not prevail today
as we did not prevail last fall. I will read one paragraph:
With the exception of the $500 billion deficit-reduction
plan, Capitol Hill had not been hit by such an intense
onslaught this term--
He is talking about the debate last fall on NED--
and for what is by Washington standards very small change.
But it is money that underwrites the power-machers of
Washington and their friends. Compare the White House flurry
to save the NED with its actions regarding funds for U.N.
peacekeeping forces. Congress has declined to fund President
Clinton's 1993 supplemental request for $293 million for the
peacekeeping program and knocked 33 percent off his 1994
request for $620 million. How did the White House respond?
With barely a peep. Tony Lake did not call staff members.
Wirth issued no noticeable protest.
You think about that--over this amount of money.
The Senator from Maryland spoke at length this morning. He did not
mention one single specific program of NED that has been effective. The
reason he did not is because the General Accounting Office says there
is not any. The General Accounting Office says--and I invite you to
listen carefully to this--NED did not have a sufficient system to
determine whether their goals were being met and the grants were not
adequately controlled and accounted for.
Here is another thing; January 4, 1994, 20 days ago, the GAO said:
However, it should be noted that there is no central U.S.
Governmentwide democracy program, no overall statement of
U.S. policy regarding U.S. objectives and strategy for
democratic development, no specific and common definition of
what constitutes a democracy program, and no specificity
regarding the roles of the foreign affairs and defense
agencies in promoting democratic processes.
The first statement dealt exclusively with NED. They do not know what
they are doing. They have no adequate method of accounting for the
money. You look at the inspector general's report and you will find it
absolutely replete with methods of spending money that nobody controls.
First-class airfare has been one of the biggest items in their budget.
The able Senator from Massachusetts, my good friend, who stood on
this floor with me hour after hour trying to deal with the deficit,
points out that we do not overlap with AID, for example, the Agency for
International Development, because the National Endowment for Democracy
can go into places that AID cannot.
The truth of the matter is that AID can be operating in every one of
those countries if the Secretary of State wants them to. It can be
accomplished with a stroke of the pen. The Secretary of State can put
the Agency for International Development in every one of those
countries.
Mr. President, this program started out to be privately funded. It
was to be privately funded, supplemented with Federal funds, until it
could become privately funded. Here we are, 12 years later, and private
funds represent less than 4.5 percent of the spending of this agency.
And as far as I know, nobody is trying to do anything about it.
You think about this organization supporting what would be a military
dictator in Panama and the Ambassador having said, ``For God's sake,
get these people out of this country.'' They have spent money in New
Zealand, Britain, and France. Are they not democracies?
Finally, I want to leave a little time for Senator Brown, but I want
to make a couple of points.
One, do you know why democracy is threatened in Russia? It is not
because they do not understand democracy. It is because they are
hungry. Do you know why the people of Haiti could not care less about
democracy? It is because they are hungry.
The Senator from Arizona has said something about fighting for
Arkansas projects. I promise you, if you give the people of his home
State of Arizona or the people of my home State of Arkansas a chance to
let us both debate this issue, and say, ``Would you like to have a few
projects for your State, or would you like to put $50 million into this
thing, which has a proven failure for a track record?'' he would lose
90 to 10. You can throw this money off the top of the Washington
Monument and you will do more good.
It is a program that has long since outlived its usefulness. That is
not the debate here. The debate is simply to say: For Pete's sake, in
these times of budget restraint, do not increase this budget by 42.8
percent. You have already doubled it, and are heading for tripling it,
over the last 5 years. What kind of nonsense is this when the people of
this country need assistance in their home States, just as the Senator
from Arizona has pointed out.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes and 24
seconds remaining.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from Colorado, if the Senator still wishes to speak on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Colorado wish to speak?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas yielding to me, and I do wish to address this
issue and speak in favor of the Bumper amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is before the body is a very
straightforward effort by the Senator from Arkansas to save the
taxpayers some money. Currently, NED has been appropriated $35 million.
This authorization involves a $15 million increase above last year's
appropriation. In percentage terms, that is an enormous increase.
When the Senate deliberates on this issue, I think it must think
about several questions.
One, is this a program that the Members want to continue at all? I
believe the Senator from Arkansas has done his best to accommodate the
body by simply bringing funding back down to the current appropriating
level. He has not gone further, and he and I both would prefer to
eliminate funding entirely. But what he has said, at least, is that
this is not a program that ought to be increased above the appropriated
level for the next 2 years.
I think every Member of the Senate is concerned. NED grants have been
controversial. They are not only controversial, but many of them are
outright wasteful and undefendable. Even the strongest advocates of NED
will grant you that.
Frankly, everyone, when we talk about NED, will express concern about
the abusive system that has been built up, about the process of
noncompetitive grants, about the inability to do proper audits, and
about the inability to properly control the funds.
So Members must ask: Is this a program we want to significantly
increase in spending?
I think the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas is only
reasonable. It is quite moderate. It does not suggest that we eliminate
funding; it only suggests that we not increase it dramatically.
I know there have been some questions raised on the floor, and I
thought I will address those because I think they are important for
Members to consider.
One of the points made by the advocates was that NED deserves this
huge increase because it operates in countries that AID does not.
Mr. President, it is true. NED does operate in countries AID does
not. But those countries, and there are 14 of them, involve only 8
percent of the funding that NED has right now. The simple fact is that
the focus of NED is not in countries that AID does not address. The
focus of NED is in countries that all too often not only are addressed
by NED and addressed by AID, but have long-established democratic
systems.
Mr. President, NED has sponsored wasteful trips overseas, trips to
posh resorts, trips to luxury hotels--trips that bring democracy to
areas of the world that have had democracy almost as long as any place
on the face of the globe.
To suggest that NED deserves a huge increase in funding because it
services areas that AID does not cover I think stretches the point. The
fact is 92 percent of the funds expended by NED right now duplicate
countries that are covered by AID. To suggest this funding is justified
for that reason, I think, misses the point.
It has been suggested that NED does not have to wade through the
Federal bureaucracy to distribute the money. Mr. President, there is a
difference. But I challenge any Member who considers the issues to tell
me why that is so good. Are there bureaucratic obstacles that we ought
to circumvent? Absolutely. But Mr. President, we should not circumvent
decent audit procedures. We should not circumvent competitive bidding
procedures.
Is there any Member here who honestly believes that if someone has a
better proposal and a better grant, they should not have it? Where did
it ever come about that we believe that money ought to automatically go
to inside political groups even if someone else has a better proposal?
Surely the Members of this body want to see the taxpayers' money spent
in the most positive way. Instead, NED now channels money to some of
the founding organizations--the Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
the AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of Commerce--the insiders, without
competitive grants.
Does anyone think the absence of competitive grants is really
something to be proud of? No one has articulated uncompetitive grants
as one of the virtues of NED in this debate.
Does anyone think a slipshod method of accounting for money is
something to be proud of? I know the Members who have been active on
this issue. I do not think that represents their feelings at all.
Mr. President, if there are indeed impediments to handing out Federal
money that are too burdensome, let us tackle them. Let us go after
them. I am all for eliminating that waste. But let us not use that as a
justification for continuing to grant noncompetitive grants out of NED.
It has been suggested, I think by a number of Members over the years,
that killing NED or, in this case, not increasing its funding
dramatically would indicate a lack of interest in democracy. That is
not the case. The programs are duplicative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the proponents of the
amendment has expired.
The opponents have 2 minutes and 22 seconds remaining.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just respond very quickly to my
colleague from Arkansas.
The report that they keep referring to about how bad NED is is the
1993 inspector general's report that actually covers the period 1988 to
1990. The fact is, the GAO reviewed that during the same period and NED
responded immediately to those concerns in 1991 issuing a blueprint for
action.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,
Samuel Berger, delivered to us today.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, January 27, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pell: The Administration believes strongly
that its priority efforts to promote democracy around the
world rest on an effective and adequately-funded National
Endowment for Democracy. The NED is unique because it is
flexible and responds quickly to urgent situations where
democracy is threatened or where opportunities are greatest.
Therefore we support the authorization level in the current
Senate bill.
The Administration opposes provisions that would mandate
matching private funds for the NED and its core grantees.
Such a restriction could open our democracy programs to
pressure from self-interested private funders, would quickly
reduce the funding levels and create more bureaucracy at a
time when the President and the Vice President are seeking to
reduce burdensome bureaucratic controls.
In addition, the President has appointed an interagency
working group to enhance and coordinate democracy promotion
programs across the entire U.S. Government, and to coordinate
with nongovernmental and quasi-governmental organizations
like the NED. That group has completed its report and made
its recommendations to the President and they are under
active consideration. In addition, a GAO study has been
prepared which addresses similar issues. Therefore, we do not
need and cannot accept a costly commission to study the NED
as proposed in some amendments.
Thank you for your leadership and continuing support of the
President's global democracy agenda, especially your support
for the National Endowment for Democracy.
Sincerely,
Samuel Berger,
Deputy Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Sam Berger says that they are currently
reviewing the very recommendations that have come out of their own
interagency working group that will enhance democracy promotion
programs in order to coordinate them, and the President is about to
make active decisions on those. So this has been a process that has
been ongoing.
Furthermore, we hear talk about no accountability; first-class
airfares. The core group and the board members of NED do not get paid.
They are not compensated. We have significant people of accomplishment
who take time off to fly to different parts of the world to help people
engaged in democratic efforts.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. KERRY. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. And not first class. First class is now prohibited.
There was a time earlier when this was a problem. But now it has been
eliminated. They do not permit first-class travel--there is a flat,
absolute prohibition against it.
I heard my other colleague talk about this conference in Switzerland.
Yes, a conference was held in Switzerland, not for democracy in
Switzerland but in order to be a convening place for people coming from
the Balkans. You cannot hold a conference in the Balkans. They were
bringing people out of Serbia to discuss human rights. They could not
do that in Serbia, so they held a conference in Switzerland. The
conference was not for the purpose of democracy in Switzerland. That
was the convening place to discuss serious democratic problems nearby
elsewhere in Europe.
We ought to at least, in the course of this debate, try to keep the
facts before us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time under the previous order has expired.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the
Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] to table the amendment of
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bond
Cohen
Craig
Durenberger
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Stevens
Wallop
Wofford
NAYS--59
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Sasser
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1267) was
rejected.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are not going to object to proceeding to
a vote on the underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
The amendment (No. 1267) was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Wellstone be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just adopted. I
apologize to him that I did not get to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Colorado brings up
another amendment, I would like to ask colleagues--if I can have their
attention for 1 minute, the Senator from North Carolina and I would
like to try to ask Senators that if you do have an amendment, we would
now like to put together a final list in the process. So we expect to
try to propound a unanimous consent request that embraces all of the
remaining amendments with some kind of time agreements. So if Senators
do have amendments remaining, we ask them to come to the floor and make
it known to either the distinguished Senator from North Carolina or
myself so we can begin to try to pull that list together.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Brown.
Amendment No. 1268
(Purpose: To ensure the consolidated and streamlined management of all
U.S. Government activities designed to promote democracy overseas.)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 1268.
On page 179, after line 6, add the following new section:
SEC. 714. STUDY OF DEMOCRACY PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the National Endowment for Democracy will fund
$35,000,000 in democracy development programs overseas in
fiscal year 1994.
(2) the Agency for International Development will fund
approximately $400,000,000 worth of democracy development
programs overseas in fiscal year 1994.
(3) it is in the interest of the United States to have a
coordinated approach to the funding of international
democracy programs supported by United States Government
funds.
(4) both the Agency for International Development and the
National Endowment for Democracy have funded overlapping
programs in the same country; and
(5) the recent study of the independent Board for
International Broadcasting and the United States Information
Agency's Voice of America yielded a plan for a new, more
cost-effective structure for United States Government-
sponsored broadcasting that reduces cost and increases
coordination.
(b) Report.--(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission for the purpose of conducting a study of United
States Government-funded democracy support activities,
including activities funded through the National Endowment
for Democracy and the Agency for International Development.
Such commission shall submit a report to the President and to
the appropriate committees of the Congress on a streamlined,
cost-effective organization of United States democracy
assistance.
(2) The report shall include--
(A) a review of all United States-sponsored democracy
programs and identification of those programs that are
overlapping;
(B) a clear statement of achievable goals and objectives
for all United States-sponsored democracy programs, and an
evaluation of the manner in which current democracy
activities meet these goals and objectives.
(C) a review of the current United States Government
organization for the delivery of democracy assistance and
recommended changes to reduce cost and streamline overhead
involved in the delivery of democracy assistance; and
(D) a review of all agencies involved in delivering United
States Government funds in the form of democracy assistance
and a recommended focal point or lead agency within the
United States Government for overall coordination and
consolidation of the effort.
(3) The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted
not later than 180 days after the commission is established.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I wanted the amendment read at the desk so
all Members would be familiar with its contents. It simply asks that we
review how we currently dispense aid and assistance. The fact is we do
it in a variety of ways. It may be, after this is reviewed, that the
State Department and Members of Congress will be comfortable with that
bifurcated or trifurcated process. But my hope is out of it will come
some ideas, some suggestions for streamlining the process and improving
the evaluation of the results therefrom. Inasmuch as we have duplicate
methods, I thought it appropriate to ask for this study and review.
My understanding is this amendment has been reviewed and cleared on
both sides.
I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. We are prepared
to accept it.
Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Colorado, is he prepared to
proceed with his next amendment immediately after this?
Mr. BROWN. It is at the discretion of the distinguished chairman. My
thought would be in terms of procedure to go to the jute amendment,
which I understand is not objected to and then move to the other NED
amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Fine. Mr. President, we would be delighted to continue to
proceed as rapidly as possible through the amendments. This particular
amendment I think is sound in view of the debate we just had. We
clearly would be served by a study to understand exactly how the
overlapping democratic institution-building efforts are either
colliding or coordinating, and so I think the study would serve the
Senate, since the last debate seemed to evidence there is not a lot of
agreement on that.
Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The question is on agreeing to
amendment 1268.
The amendment (No. 1268) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me reiterate for colleagues who may
have been walking back to their offices or simply out of earshot, we
are now putting together on both sides a final list in order to
propound a unanimous-consent agreement. There are some people who have
amendments on the list, at least at the outset, who have indicated they
had an amendment they wanted to bring up. The way it works around here,
a lot of those drop by the wayside, and we are trying to find out
exactly how many have dropped.
So I say again to staff listening and to colleagues, we are trying to
put together a final list which would be to everybody's advantage so we
can understand where we are heading and hopefully propound a unanimous
consent agreement which would embrace all of those amendments with time
agreements and a time for final vote on the bill.
I thank the Senator from Colorado.
Amendment No. 1269
(Purpose: To eliminate U.S. contributions to the International Jute
Organization)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself and Mr.
Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 1269:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section--
SEC. 17. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL
JUTE ORGANIZATION.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
or any other Act may be used to fund any United States
contribution to the International Jute Organization.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in past years, the United States has been a
member of a number of organizations, the purpose of which has been to
control markets, to increase prices and to assist industries within
their countries to achieve higher revenue from their products.
I certainly do not fault countries and organizations for wanting to
promote their products or to achieve the top price they can. I am
concerned about, though, two aspects of this practice. One, the
suggestion that the way to deal in a competitive world is through a
monopoly or a market allocation approach. That is not only contrary to
U.S. law but contrary to our American sense of fairness. We believe
prices ought to be determined by competition and by markets, not by
government edict or by allocating markets. No American needs to be
reminded of the fact that OPEC operated to the great disadvantage of
American consumers. Tragically, the United States has cooperated with a
number of these organizations that attempt to allocate markets and that
attempt to boost prices for which American consumers simply get stuck
with the tag.
We have had some luck in trying to eliminate U.S. membership and
participation in these organizations that do not serve U.S. consumer
interest. The International Jute Organization is one of those that I
think falls into that category. It is not a huge amount of money, but
the principle involved is enormously important. We should not
participate in organizations that function against the interests of the
American consumer. This amendment eliminates U.S. membership in the
International Jute Organization. It saves us $70,000 a year, which is
not a great deal of money but it is 14 percent of the organizational
budget. Much more importantly, it sends a message. It sends a message
that the United States is no longer going to condone organizations that
attempt to stick it to the American consumer.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both
sides, and I would reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, I would like to
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment. My colleague and I, I think
once had a rather enjoyable time in the course of the Foreign Relations
Committee perusing the list of some of these international
organizations. It raises serious questions in many cases about what we
are doing. This is one of the most egregious examples. I am pleased to
say that the administration is in fact already in the process of
withdrawing us from it. But I think it is appropriate for us to
guarantee it and to take the position we want to make sure that
happens.
So the Senator is I think appropriately bringing this to the floor
and I happily join with him. We are willing to accept it.
I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment--
--
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, before we move to a vote, I would simply
like to note two things. One, the very strong help received from the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, not only in this effort but
in the effort to eliminate the coffee cartel. That will save American
consumers literally tens of millions of dollars a year. The
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was instrumental in helping to
eliminate the coffee cartel and now the Jute Organization.
As a Republican, I might also mention for the record that I had
specifically asked the Bush administration for assistance in ending
these anticonsumer cartels, and I am sorry to report we did not receive
assistance. But the Senator from Massachusetts is quite correct, the
administration, at least in jute and some of the others, has been
willing to look at and make movement and changes. As one who has not
always found bright spots in the current administration, I think it is
incumbent to note they have made a major shift in policy, which I
believe is a significant help to the American consumer.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as a Democrat, let me respond by saying
that I was delighted with the comments the Senator from Colorado made
up until the point that he mentioned lack of bright spots. But this is
not a moment for us to disagree on anything, so I appreciate his
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1269 of the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
The amendment (No. 1269) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1272
(Purpose: To ensure the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]
increases its emphasis on raising private contributions to augment its
U.S. government funding)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr.
Bumpers, and Mr. Feingold proposes an amendment numbered
1272.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 123, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 229. PRIVATIZATION ON FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT
FOR DEMOCRACY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), in
fiscal year 1994, the total amount of grants awarded on a
noncompetitive basis to a NED core grantee in fiscal years
1994 and 1995 may not exceed an amount which represents the
following percentage of the total amount of such grants
allocated for such grantee by the National Endowment for
Democracy for that fiscal year:
(1) For fiscal year 1994, 85 percent.
(2) For fiscal year 1995, 80 percent.
(b) Exception.--The percentage limitation of subsection (a)
may be exceeded by a NED core grantee in a fiscal year to the
extent that such excess amount is matched by grants and
donations received by the NED core grantee from private
donors.
(c) Funds Awarded By The National Endowment For
Democracy.--Except as provided in subsection (d), in fiscal
years 1994 and 1995, the total amount of grants awarded by
the National Endowment for Democracy on a competitive basis
in any fiscal year may not exceed an amount which represents
the following percentage of the total amount of grants
awarded on a competitive basis by the National Endowment for
Democracy for that fiscal year:
(1) For fiscal year 1994, 85 percent.
(2) For fiscal year 1995, 80 percent.
(b) Exception.--The percentage limitation of subsection (c)
may be exceeded by the National Endowment for Democracy in a
fiscal year to the extent that such excess amount is matched
by grants and donations received by the National Endowment
for Democracy from private donors.
(e) Funds Returned To The U.S. Treasury For Deficit
Reduction.--To the extent that funds allocated for a NED core
grantee or the National Endowment for Democracy's
competitively awarded grants in excess of the percentage
limitation of subsections (a) and (c) are not matched by
private contributions, such funds shall be returned to the
United States Treasury for the purpose of deficit reduction.
(f) Sense Of The Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the National Endowment for Democracy and its core
grantees should rely on increasing amounts of private sector
donations in future years.
(g) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``NED core grantees'' refers to the International Republican
Institute [IRI], the Free Trade Union Institute [FTUI], the
National Democratic Institute [NDI], and the Center for
International Enterprise [CIPE].
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have had extensive discussion in this
Chamber with regard to the National Endowment for Democracy, not only
this year, but in other years. I do not rise to prolong that debate
unnecessarily. Members have considered the subject, and both chairmen
of the subcommittees in this Chamber have been most tolerant in
allowing those of us who have concerns about the endowment to express
them and to draw the problems we see to the attention of the Members.
The Members have acted responsibly in moving to not increase funding
for the endowment. This amendment addresses the endowment in a slightly
different way. All Members applaud efforts to expand democracy around
the world. Many of us, though, have been concerned about the way the
funds allocated to the endowment have been spent. One of the original
ideas for the endowment articulated when this measure was forwarded by
President Reagan to Congress was the suggestion that this should not
simply be a Government handout. Rather, that it ought to be an effort
to involve the energies and the ideas of many of our private
institutions in the efforts to expand democracy around the world.
That is a sound idea and an enormously helpful one. One of the
concerns that I have had is that the money would be spent in ways other
than these institutions would spend the money if it were their own.
People do tend to spend other people's money differently than they
would spend their own assets.
We may recall one of the original suggestions with regard to the
endowment. By saying it was one of the original suggestions, I simply
do not mean to imply it was included in the original authorization. It
was not. But it was one of the ideas suggested with regard to the
endowment as it was advanced originally. That was that there be
matching funds. Not only was it to tap the energy and guidance of the
core grantee institutions, but it would also share funds.
This amendment attempts to accomplish that purpose. The amendment
suggests that matching funding should be part and parcel of the
National Endowment. In 1994, it requires that 15 percent must be
matched by private-sector contributions. It requires the people who get
the grants to put some of their own money into the pot as well. Critics
could say, ``Hank, this does not go far enough. This only asks
initially for 15 percent from the agency that is going to get 85
percent. That is not much of a matching requirement. It is not a 50-50
matching requirement. It is not a 25-75 matching requirement. It is a
small token.''
That is true. It is a very small amount; 15 percent perhaps could
fairly be described as a token amount.
But, Mr. President, I am convinced that it will make a difference. I
am convinced when people have some of their own money involved in the
project, they will be more careful with that money, they will be more
frugal with that money, they will be more willing to use it in a way
more responsible to the taxpayers. Perhaps even more importantly, I
believe when they put some of their own money into it, they will put
some of their own heart and some of their own energy and some of their
own focus, some of themselves into it in a way that simply has not been
the case.
We have heard examples of NED funds being spent on first-class
airfare. We have heard of examples of the funds being wasted in many
areas. I guarantee you, I know the Republican Institute. I know the
Democratic Institute. These are not people who throw around their own
money. Most of the people on the board not only have done very well in
the private sector, but they have done very well at guiding
institutions and successful enterprises. Both the Democratic and
Republican institutes are filled with people who have a great deal of
business knowledge and practical experience in the real world.
It is disturbing to see them authorize projects and grants that spend
money in a way they never would spend their own money or their own
company's money or their own organization's money. I do not mean to
indicate malfeasance or misfeasance. But I mean to indicate that we
have not captured the attention of the people who spend Government
money in this area, partly because they have not had any of their own
dough on the line.
This will not cripple them at all. It will simply ask them to come up
with a 15-percent matching share initially. I must say, I think it
should be higher. I wish it were more. It is a modest proposal because
I have worked with some of the advocates of NED on it. Senator McCain
has worked closely with me to design this amendment. He, I hope, will
speak for himself. But he has signed off on this amendment as we
reviewed it. I believe he thinks it is worthwhile. I like it for two
reasons.
I like it because I think it will make the projects far more
effective. I think by having the organizations put a little of their
own money in, or perhaps raise money to match the Government grant, you
will have a much deeper, more committed involvement of the
institutions.
Second, I like it because we will see an increase in effectiveness of
existing programs.
So both for the involvement of the people and for the institutions, I
think it has great potential.
My amendment will actually increase the amount NED can spend in the
years ahead by 15 percent in 1994, and 20 percent in 1995. This will, I
believe, advance democracy.
Let me add simply one other aspect. Honest men and women have
sincerely disagreed about NED as we have moved forward. I believe this
sets a different focus on the amount of money that goes through NED. By
personally involving the funds of the organizations, we will stimulate
a different attitude. People will not look at this money as simply a
handout. They will look at it as an opportunity to participate in
advancing democracy around the world.
And I believe their participation, this sharing, could well go to
solve many of the concerns of those who have been so skeptical about
NED activities in the past.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield to me
briefly?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I merely want to, Mr. President, say that the Senator
from Colorado has offered an amendment that I am very pleased to
support and to join him in. It is not a secret that I feel the National
Endowment for Democracy should be abolished: Eliminate funding for it
and get rid of it. I have heard the other side. I understand what they
say. I respectfully disagree.
The next-best step, if we cannot get rid of NEA, is to do what the
Senator from Colorado suggests and ask those private-sector
participants to involve some of their money to make this a more joint
initiative.
I just wanted to stand here while the Senator was making the
presentation to say that I think he is on the right track. It is not
doing what I would like to do, but I certainly support his efforts
because it is the next-best thing. So I am pleased to be supporting his
amendment today.
Mr. BROWN. I want to thank the Senator for his remarks. Perhaps if I
may simply clarify one point, I want to make it clear that this is an
effort to work with NED. The money that is put up as participatory
money, donor money, will increase the amount NED can spend. In other
words, this is not an effort to cut back Government funding. We have
had that debate. We have talked about it. I think all of us know where
we stand on it.
This amendment is not meant to cut back on Government funding. It is
meant to encourage private participation. If you have private
participation, you will not only get 15 percent donations in 1995, at
least, but this will then authorize thus a total of a 15-percent
increase in the amount each core grantee can spend, and an increase of
20 percent in 1995.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to yield the floor to the Senator from Texas for 5 minutes, after which
I will be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Gramm pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________