[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S11317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the 
programs sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy and the four 
core groups that are part of the endowment family. For a very modest 
investment from the U.S. Government, this nongovernment organization 
has accomplished remarkable achievements in promoting democratic 
institutions, advancing the norms of a civil society, and furthering 
the principle and practice of market economics abroad. NED has 
contributed significantly to the foreign policy goals of the United 
States.
  It is exciting to chronicle the rich and positive role the NED has 
played in the promotion of American political values since its 
inception in 1983. It has been helpful in winding down the cold war in 
Eastern and Central Europe, in facilitating democratic transition, 
growth and consolidation in Asia and Latin America, and in supporting 
proponents of human rights and freedom in all geographic regions of the 
globe and in more than 90 countries.
  Rather than listing the additional successes of NED, I ask that a 
statement entitled ``The United States Needs The National Endowment for 
Democracy'' be inserted in the Record for all Members to read. The 
statement was drafted by the Forum for International Policy whose 
president is Brent Scowcroft and whose chairman is Larry Eagleburger. 
They, along with virtually every individual who served in the positions 
of National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in every 
administration since 1983 have endorsed the NED's work and support its 
full funding. I ask all Members to read this statement carefully.
  The material follows:

      The United States Needs the National Endowment for Democracy

       The United States' only international political foundation, 
     the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), is under threat. 
     Establishment in 1983, the Endowment operates openly and 
     independently to support individuals, groups and institutions 
     who are working to promote and consolidate democracy in their 
     own countries. Although it is federally funded and subject to 
     Congressional oversight, NED is not a government agency. An 
     independent, non-partisan board of directors sets its 
     policies and strategies. The Endowment channels its support 
     directly to grantees or through four core institutes: the 
     Center for International Private Enterprise, the 
     International Republican Institute, the Free Trade Union 
     Institute, and the National Democratic Institute for 
     International Affairs. They, too, are independent of any 
     government direction. The House of Representatives has 
     approved an appropriation for fiscal 1997 of $30 million, 
     reflecting no increase over the current level. The Senate 
     Appropriations Committee, however, has recommended that 
     funding be eliminated entirely on the grounds that the 
     Endowment is a Cold War institution which has outlived its 
     usefulness. That is a short-sighted judgment and should be 
     reversed.
       In 1983, President Ronald Reagan called for a non-
     governmental institution along the lines of political 
     foundations in other Western democracies. The National 
     Endowment for Democracy was created to assist the transition 
     to modern, pluralistic, particularly systems in other 
     countries within the context of their own individual 
     histories, cultures and traditions. The United States has 
     fundamental and enduring interests in the promotion of 
     American political values and ensuring the spread of 
     pluralism, freedom and democracy throughout the world. 
     Pursuit of those interests is no less important today than it 
     was at the height of the Cold War. Our own national security 
     and economic prosperity are no less at stake. NED and its 
     core institutes are uniquely able to accomplish this task by 
     the employment of non-governmental structures untainted by 
     direct association with the U.S. Government.
       At the official level, our choice of instruments to pursue 
     democracy support strategies is limited. The Agency for 
     International Development's (AID) focussed programs have been 
     effective, but they reflect the immediate priorities of any 
     administration in office (or of actively interested members 
     of Congress). Because of the way they are funded and 
     operated, the emphasis of AID programs is too often on short 
     to medium-term results. They are managed by federal employees 
     in accord with bureaucratic rules and regulations. AID's 
     ``official'' programs require us to work with host 
     governments or at least with their tacit acceptance. The 
     State Department, the United States Information Agency, and 
     other federal agencies as well, promote democracy, but they, 
     too, must operate within limits and norms set for official 
     government representatives in foreign lands. NED and its 
     institutes, however, are able to use their resources to 
     nurture the development of grass roots democratic movements 
     and long-term processes which must grow from within. NED 
     operates where there is no official U.S. presence and it is 
     not obligated to work through official channels. NED is not 
     driven by the short-term imperatives which often, quite 
     legitimately, drive government decisions and actions.
       The Endowment's non-governmental approach has worked. 
     Through its low-cost programs NED does openly and aboveboard 
     what our government is not able to do: it supports monitoring 
     of elections, conferences and exchanges in Russia on party 
     organization, polling methods, publicity and the nuts and 
     bolts of open elections which have been credited with 
     contributing to the success of democratic forces in the 
     recent elections. In the Central Asian Republics it has 
     funded civic education centers. In Slovakia it supports 
     teacher-training workshops to introduce citizenship education 
     into primary and secondary schools. In Bosnia it has kept an 
     important source of news alive. It helps sustain Burma's 
     hard-pressed democratic movement. It supported grass roots 
     education for Palestinian voters. In Mexico it aids a 
     coalition that focuses on electoral reform, political 
     participation and accountability of public officials. NED 
     even funds initiatives to strengthen democracy and human 
     rights movements in Cuba. In many instances, however, despite 
     free elections and outward signs of change, the transition to 
     more deeply-rooted, stable democracy is incomplete or even at 
     risk. It is in our interest to sustain NED's efforts because 
     today's initiatives are no less important than those of the 
     past.
       Signs that America is prepared to disengage from the 
     important work of fostering democracy are unsettling to our 
     allies and do not serve our national interests. The National 
     Endowment for Democracy has proven itself to be a cost 
     effective, long-term investment in America's security. It 
     would be a mistake to eliminate it. The Senate should restore 
     funding for the National Endowment for Democracy as approved 
     by the House.

                          ____________________