[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.'')

                          ____________________