Commending the National Endowment for Democracy for its contributions to democratic development around the world on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns over H. Con. Res 274. The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. Madam Speaker, what the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects ``soft money'' into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call U.S. manipulation of foreign elections ``promoting democracy.'' How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?

In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, CATO Institute scholar Barbara Conry notes that:

``NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial

mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive.

Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for

special-interest groups to harass the duly elected

governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign

elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements

. . .

``. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the

wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to

pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy

under the guise of ``promoting democracy.'' Proponents of NED

maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome

the restraints that limit the activities of a government

agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide

full funding for this initiative. NED's detractors point to

the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization

that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power

expressly given to the federal government in the

Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and

administrative controls . . .

``. . . In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the

most negative aspects of both private aid and official

foreign aid--the pitfalls of decentralized `loose cannon'

foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the

United States is trying to `run the show' around the world.''

The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.

Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.

Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:

Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National

Endowment for Democracy (NED) . . . which, in turn, receive

money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the

return to power of former high-ranking Communists which has

also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have

extremely liberal ideas . . .

Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament,

thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian

constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that

Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of

Enver Hoxha's Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main

organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the

Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over

2000 people.

President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: ``Without IRI's

support we could not have come so far so fast.'' Indeed.

Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies

another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching

Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister

of Bulgaria and a leader of `reform.' ''

In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that ``IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign,'' adding that IRI efforts secured ``a victory for reformers in Slovakia.'' What the IRI does not say is that many of these ``reformers'' had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?

More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected president, saying, ``Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.'' It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela's legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?

Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 274) commending the National Endowment for Democracy for its contributions to democratic development around the world on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 274.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution commending the National Endowment for Democracy. I am a sponsor of this measure, and I appreciate the strong support expressed on a bipartisan basis for this measure. I appreciate the numerous cosponsors, and I would like to thank the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for introducing the original resolution.

Madam Speaker, this resolution recognizes the National Endowment for Democracy for its work, which has served to strengthen democracies and give hope to many who are shaping a system of governance in their countries that is based on the free participation of the people. Furthermore, the measure expresses the Congress's commendation of 20 years of working to build grassroots institutions and establishing electoral systems, building political parties and opening opportunities for broad-based governance.

During the years of the Cold War, various groups and various individuals were seeking a creative way to support democracy. And as a result of this, it led to President Reagan giving a speech in 1983. In that speech, he proposed an initiative, in his words, ``to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.''

Those were Reagan's words at the time. He noted that the American Political Foundation would soon begin a study ``to determine how the U.S. can best contribute as a Nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.''

Well, soon thereafter, the National Endowment for Democracy was created as a nongovernmental organization that is supported by annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. The ideas that spurred the creation of the NED, as we call it, is that U.S. assistance on behalf of democracy efforts around the world would be good for the U.S. and would be good for those struggling for freedom and for self- government. And that is still true today.

Their success is captured in their mission statements, and the NED's mission statement says that the Endowment is ``guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures and values.'' Democracies cannot be achieved through a single election and need not be based upon the model of the U.S. or any other particular country. Rather, it evolves according to the needs and traditions of diverse political cultures. By supporting this process, the endowment helps strengthen the bond between indigenous, democratic movements abroad and the people of the U.S., a bond based on a common commitment to representative government and a common commitment to freedom as a way of life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think we all want to congratulate the National Endowment for Democracy for the last 20 years of service, and I think we all wish NED continued success. I think the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations well summed up the values and successes of the NED. I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 274.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I would first like to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for introducing this important resolution and my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for being such a leader on this important issue. I am proud to have joined them in introducing this initiative.

Madam Speaker, over the past two decades, the world has witnessed a democratic revolution. Russia has broken from its totalitarian past and held free and open elections. The Indonesian people have freely elected their new leaders for the first time in decades, and all South Africans have finally been granted the franchise.

Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy played a critical role in supporting this Democratic revolution across the globe. With each new wave of democracy since its establishment, the endowment and its partners, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, have been at the forefront of our struggle to expand the arena of democracy across the globe.

This is such a quintessential bipartisan American undertaking that all of us in this House must be very proud of. Together, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute have seeded the new fertile soil in Eastern Europe and Latin America which have bloomed into regions where democracy and not tyranny now dominate.

Democracy is often the precursor of the development of human rights and personal freedom, causes that we have championed our entire political lives. Recognizing this, NED has not only pushed forward democracy, but has supported human rights activists on every continent with financial grants, with personal awards, and with tremendous moral support.

All of us should express our profoundest gratitude for the men and women who have worked tirelessly to support these goals which are so central to the success of U.S. foreign policy in this fast-moving era of change.

I am delighted to have had the opportunity to cosponsor this resolution with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my good friend, the chairman of our committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 274.

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and we yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes Nos. 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, and 531 during the week of September 30 through October 2. Had I been present, I would have voted the following:

Rollcall vote No. 524: Sandlin Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1--``no''; rollcall vote No. 525: Pallone Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308--``no''; rollcall vote No. 526: H. Res. 357--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 527: Dicks Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2691--``no''; rollcall vote No. 528: Case Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1--``no''; rollcall vote No. 529: Davis (AL) Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308--``no''; rollcall vote No. 530: Adoption of the Conference Report on S. 3--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 531: Obey Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2660--``no''; rollcall vote No. 532: H. Con. Res. 274--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 533: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1--``no''; and rollcall vote No. 534: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1--``no.''

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I missed four votes in the House of Representatives on October 7, 2003. Had I been in attendance I would have made the following votes:

Passage of H. Con. Res. 274, Commending the National Endowment for Democracy. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''

Vote on the Bishop (NY) Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1, Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``no.''

Vote on the Flake Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1, Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''