Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on August 4, 1999, in SH-216 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the farm crisis. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on August 5, 1999, in SH-216 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the farm crisis.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 202, 205, 207, and 216. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who is my friend and whose leadership I appreciate so much. Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi if he knows of further debate. If not, I make an inquiry because I have been asked to substitute for the leader in making motions.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 27, 1999 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss consolidation and anti-trust issues in Agricultural business. committee on rules and administration

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 29, 1999 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the mark-up of the original bill regarding the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond to my distinguished colleague, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to the bill.

Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate very much the words of the Senator and I appreciate the desire to move on with the bill. I want to recognize the distinguished Senator from Florida has arrived. He, likewise, shares our enthusiasm for passing the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to state the purpose of my amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to restore funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham and Senator Mack, who serve with me as members of the Board of Advisors for the National Endowment for Democracy. We are proposing funding the NED at $30 million, which is $2 million below the President's request and $1 million less than this year's funding level. It is also $1 million below the authorization level that has already been approved by the Senate. Our amendment proposes to shift $30 million from the Capital Investment Fund in the State Department title of the bill. I regret very much having to propose this shift because I, like the chairman of the subcommittee, believe the Capital Investment Fund is important to the effective operation of the Department of State and that the account is underfunded. But if we are successful in making the offset, I will work with the chairman and others to try to help find the moneys to help restore that funding to the Capital Investment Fund. The problem the subcommittee faced was a serious problem. There is simply inadequate funding in the 150 function of the International Affairs Account. That scarcity of funds forced difficult choices about priorities and required much give and take. In my judgment, the National Endowment for Democracy must be a high priority. There is no funding for the National Endowment in the bill before us. That is why we are compelled to propose the amendment I have just introduced. The reason for proposing the amendment is that the appropriations bill provided no funds--none at all--for the National Endowment. The Endowment did not even merit a mention in the bill; it is completely ignored. This zero-funding decision was made even though the Senate approved a straight-line funding level of $31 million in the State Department authorization bill, which we considered earlier this year, and even though successive administrations and successive Congresses have supported full, or near full, funding for the NED year after year. It is a unique phenomenon perhaps that the NED has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since 1983 when it was created by the Reagan administration. The NED has consistently gained the support of both Republican and Democratic administrations since then and of every Republican and Democratic Congress over the past 15 years. But not in this bill. The committee report accompanying the bill does recommend that funds for the NED be found among other divergent State Department accounts. This simply is not a good idea. Funding directly from the State Department would make the NED a grantee of the State Department and make it an arm of the Department. This would eliminate NED's line item, destroy its independence, and undermine its ability to gain access to grassroots organizations fighting for freedom and democracy in other countries all over this world--the very heart of NED's effectiveness. For this reason, former Secretaries of State have written of the importance of retaining the independence of the NED in a 1995 letter. They wrote: We consider the nongovernmental character of the NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding twelve years ago. NED's effectiveness comes in good part because it has an independent status, functions as a nongovernmental organization, and has a board that operates as an independent board of advisers. We have faced and confronted challenges to the NED numerous times in the past. The Senate has debated funding for the NED six times since 1993. Two years ago, we faced a comparable effort to slice and dice the NED. I proposed an amendment at that time to restore funding, and it was approved by the Senate by a vote of 73-27. A few weeks ago, in another challenge to NED, this time proposing a different manner by which NED allocates its internal grant-making funds among the four core institutes; the amendment was defeated by an almost identical vote of 73-26. That has been the pattern, fortunately, over the years. Let me just say I am sympathetic to the extraordinary difficulty facing the managers of the bill. There are so many critical issues in the various titles of the appropriations measure, and the NED is a very small item by comparison. But this is just the point. The NED has been a very cost-effective vehicle for promoting democracy, human rights, and civic society around the world. Given its presence in some 90 countries, many on the threshold of democratic breakthroughs and others struggling with the transition to a more open society, NED's relatively small funding level is a genuine bargain. It is an exceptional investment in security for the United States of America. We often speak in broad generalities about promoting democracy, expanding democratic values, and promoting human rights around the world. The point that must be made is that doing so is very much in our national interest. These are not whimsical ideas. Securing strong democracies should be one of the most effective means of combating and deterring the spread of terrorism, coping with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, promoting market economic practices and principles and creating opportunities to expand our markets, supporting fair labor practices, and forestalling the destabilizing effects stemming from refugee flows. None of these goals comes easily, and, as a Nation, we have decided it is in our national interest to encourage and to assist those in other countries who share the same ideals as we do in the United States. The NED is a key instrument in achieving these democratic goals and values. Over the past 15 years, the NED and its four core institutes have worked openly with willing counterparts in other countries to spread the ethos of democracy around the world. The four core institutes working with the NED itself are each affiliated with domestic American institutions. They are: A, the International Republican Institute, the IRI, and B, the National Democratic Institute, the NDI, which help build political parties, help to ensure free and fair elections, and strengthen governing institutions and civic society. They are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. Then, C, the Center for International Private Enterprise, CIPE, which promotes the growth of private enterprise in a democratic process, is affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce, and (d) the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, which has links to AFL-CIO and supports the development of independent trade unions. The Solidarity Movement in Poland was an early grantee, for example. The NED itself funds grassroots organizations that promote independent media, human rights, civic education and the rule of law in other countries. Testimonials on behalf of the NED have poured in from former Presidents, former Secretaries of State and former national security advisors, from grantees and non-grantees alike. These testimonials represent a veritable Who's Who in the world movements for democracy and human rights. These names include His Holiness the Dalai Lama; Harry Wu, the Human Rights Activist; Elena Bonner, Russia civil rights advocate; Clement Nwankwo, Chairman of the Transition Monitoring Group in Nigeria; Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic; Lech Walesa, leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland; and countless others from some 80 to 90 countries in every region of the world. Mr. President, I had hoped to avoid a debate on this issue this year. I had hoped that some agreement or arrangement could be made so that we could move ahead without delaying this appropriation bill. That certainly has been my intent. I regret that this has not been possible. The amendment is now before the Senate. I simply say that in the early 1980's when clearly it was the intent of the United States to push for democracy and human rights that the means of doing that were not at all clear to President Reagan and our Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, many felt it was inappropriate that the President and the Secretary of State sought to intervene in the affairs of other countries around the world suggesting changes of government, although this is clearly what we wanted to see. The changes in Eastern Europe could not have occurred without Lech Walesa, and Lech Walesa's movement which were heartily adopted by the AFL-CIO of this country. Through informal but very effective means of finance and organization, that fledgling labor movement in Poland was given not only strength but legitimacy throughout the world as a democratic movement of change, an alternative to a government which at the time seemed very solid. At the same time, from my own recollection and experience, I recall the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church in Central America and in the Philippines, and of American businesses who were farsighted and who understood the interests of our country laying freedom for people and democracy in contract law and the rule of law--the same principles we debate now with regard to Russia, as we have worked with Russians. How do you establish these situations, and do so without violation of diplomatic principles? Because our Nation, our President, our Secretary of State, must deal with leaders as they are constituted now and with their foreign ministers and defense ministers. But a very unique organization came from these considerations. It was called the National Endowment for Democracy. It included Republicans, Democrats, labor officials, Chamber of Commerce people, and a check and balance so that our own American view had four dimensions. This was not ideological, not official, but arose from the best grassroots leadership of this country. And it was effective. The changes in the world we now take for granted--the celebration we had at the 50th anniversary of NATO, the accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO--we take for granted that democracy there came forward. The point I am making is that it did not come forward because our State Department advocated that and brought it about, although clearly they support the shift to democratic systems. There was no official governmental way of bringing about those responses, which require money, fledgling newspapers, grassroots organizations, a how you print ballots, and how you register voters. All the nitty-gritty of politics we take for granted, but which could not be taken for granted in those countries which had not enjoyed those options. The issue before the Senate, very frankly, is that some Members I suspect may have become weary of the democracy business. They may think that was important then and this is now. I would just suggest that at the NED board meetings which I attend regularly there are routinely 80 to 100 proposals in which the National Endowment for Democracy and its core groups debate on these principles. We take seriously the idea of democracy and human rights. We think that is still a very important subject in this world. This is not routine. It is not freely dismissed as something that was lost in the budget. It was not mentioned, but the State Department might find if it came to their attention. We believe that the statement by the Senate ought to be clear--that we stand for democracy and the National Endowment for Democracy is a very good way to achieve democracy, and to do so year by year in a systematic and effective way. I point out that it is important, I suppose, to have this debate each year as a wake-up call. There may come a time when we become so blase and so routine about our functions that we forget human rights. But I hope that will never be the case. I suspect that those who are still struggling in parts of southeastern Europe--certainly in many Asian countries--those who are considering democracy in China, those in Latin America and Africa and those who are still trying to make it work out in various provinces of Russia welcome our help. They welcome labor leaders and business leaders from this country. They welcome Senators like John McCain, who heads up the Republican Institute; or Orrin Hatch, who was there at the beginning of the National Endowment. Senator Connie Mack of Florida, one of our board members now, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida, one of our board members now, have both been so effective in Latin America and Central America, and not just in the 1980's when we were all going down for inspection of elections, trying to help people find out how to campaign, and how to count votes successfully. A lot of that heavy lifting still needs to be done. Although this is a debate that I wish did not occur annually, but so be it. It is a time really for Senators to stand up and be counted on whether they feel passionately, as I do, and I think many of us do, about democracy and human rights and what we can do about it effectively. I am simply making the point that the State Department cannot do that by force. We as American citizens working through grassroots organizations and through informal means can get the money and the organization to make a difference, which ultimately our President can recognize and our Secretary of State can bless. I point out, parenthetically, that the incumbent Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has served on the Board of the National Endowment for a number of years as has Zbigniew Brzezinski, as distinguished members of the Democratic Party. We now have Paul Wolfowitz, a distinguished American diplomat and scholar, as one of the Republicans, serving on the board. This has been a case of people giving of their time and their substance in private life even as they go back and forth into the public sector and serve our country in that way. I finally make the point that we are indebted to excellent editorials that appear in major newspapers in the last few days. I simply quote a sentence from the New York Times editorial of yesterday in which they call for a vote for democracy abroad, a leading editorial. They say: It is hard to think of a dictatorship whose opponents have not benefited from the endowment. That I think is an important point. As you name the dictatorships of this world, they knew what hit them. In most cases it was the Endowment for Democracy and its advocates, and its supporters that made the difference. There may be all sorts of theories why these governments rose and fell. But I suggest that those of us who suggest it through the ballot box initiative really had to have a horse to ride on, and the means at least of making those alternatives effective. I cite, for example, the current discussion in Serbia where many persons believe--starting with our President--that President Milosevic would not be a suitable candidate for reelection or for a continuation. But the press keeps pointing out, What are the alternatives? How do habits change, if it is to occur in a democratic way? Where are the fair procedures? In fact, where has the United States been in terms of actively boosting those who wanted freedom, who wanted a different kind of Serbia, who espouse those values in this country but had no effective vehicle? Those are the missions that lie ahead. I hope we will be worthy of the task. I advocate the adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I urge the question. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. The letter states the Administration's unequivocal support for the National Endowment for Democracy and articulates the strong positive contribution the NED makes to our national interest.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we will soon be debating the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate. The State Department title of the bill includes no funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which I hope will be reversed by the Senate when we debate this appropriations bill. For the information of my colleagues, I ask that a letter from National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger to Senator Bob Graham be printed in the Record. The letter follows: The White House, Washington, July 19, 1999. Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: Thank you for writing concerning the Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations Bill and the lack of funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). I share your concern over the inadequacies of the bill. The Senate appropriations bill as reported from Committee is fraught with a range of serious problems. And, the decision to eliminate funding for the NED is one of many factors which render the legislation unacceptable. For this reason,the President's senior advisors would recommend that the legislation be vetoed if it were enacted in its current form. Our position on the NED is clear. The NED is at the core of the vision we share for a world that is more free and more democratic. Indeed, it was President Reagan's initiative to establish the NED, a decision and a vision that has had a powerful impact on our nation's efforts to expand democracy and human rights. And to its credit, the NED conducts its critically important activities with annual funding that amounts to only a small fraction of our nation's international affairs budget. From supporting election monitoring in Indonesia, to promoting independent media in the Balkans, the NED represents and promotes the most fundamental of American values throughout the world. Thank you again for your letter on this important matter. Please know that the President remains one of the strongest champions of the Endowment, and appreciates your continuing support of the NED. Sincerely, Samuel R. Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on July 21, 1999, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider the nomination of William Rainer to become Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and to conduct an oversight review of the farmland protection program. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it would be remarkable for any American to celebrate his or her 75th birthday by sky-diving, but it is even more remarkable when that person is the former President of the United States. I would expect no less however, of former president George Bush. From the South Pacific to China to the White House, he has been as brave and bold in honorably serving his country as he has been in his private life. His leadership in holding together the international coalition during the Gulf War seems even more remarkable in recent years, as other attempts to hold together a Persian Gulf alliance have failed. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in bringing attention to a wonderful story by the indefatigable White House Correspondent, Trude Feldman. Few people could provide such insight in profiling President George Bush on the occasion of his 75th birthday.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bayh in introducing legislation to bestow a Congressional Gold Medal on Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. In 1952, at the age of 35, Father Hesburgh became the fifteenth president of the University of Notre Dame. He served in that position for a remarkable 35 years. At the time of his retirement in 1987, he had the longest tenure among active American university presidents. Father Hesburgh's leadership and vision, together with the hard work of faculty, staff, alumni, and students, built Notre Dame into one of the premier universities in the United States. In you ask any Golden-domer, they will tell you that Father Hesburgh's contributions to the University of Notre Dame are as big as the 13-floor library that bears his name. Notre Dame grew exponentially in research funding and in endowment during Father Hesburgh's presidency. When he assumed the office in 1952, Notre Dame served fewer than 5,000 students. Today it is an internationally recognized university of nearly 10,000 students engaged in every imaginable academic discipline. More importantly, through his example and direction, Father Hesburgh inspired the university community to pursue not only academic excellence and international prominence, but also justice and spiritual meaning. Few universities have succeeded at creating an environment so committed to public service and so rich in its dialogue between the intellectual and the spiritual. As Father Hesburgh worked to build the University of Notre Dame into what it is today, he simultaneously answered the call to serve his nation and the world. His career has embodied the principle of public service that he espoused at Notre Dame. Father Hesburgh has held a remarkable 15 Presidential appointments over the years, covering such diverse topics as the peaceful uses of atomic energy and campus unrest. He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957, and he chaired the commission from 1969-1972. All the while he remained a national leader in education, serving on many commissions and study groups. He chaired the International Federation of Catholic Universities from 1963 to 1970. In this position and through his writings, he was instrumental in redefining the importance of international studies in higher education and the nature and mission of a contemporary Catholic university. Father Hesburgh also served four Popes as a Vatican representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international assemblies. The problems of underdeveloped nations have been a special interest of Father Hesburgh. He joined the board of the Overseas Development Council in 1971. His fund-raising work as Chairman helped avert mass starvation in Cambodia in 1979 and 1980. He also chaired the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy between 1979 and 1981. The recommendations of the Commission became the basis of legislation five years later. Father Hesburgh's lengthy list of awards include the Medal of Freedom, bestowed by President Johnson in 1964. He is also the recipient of 135 honorary degrees, the most ever awarded to an American. In retirement, Father Hesburgh has become a best-selling author. He still plays a major role in the development of higher education through the institutes he was instrumental in founding at Notre Dame, including the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Father Hesburgh chairs the advisory committee for both institutes. Despite his innumerable accomplishments, Father Hesburgh has always remained grounded in the campus life of Notre Dame University. He continues to frequently lecture and preside at mass. He talks with everyone who approaches him and still loves having lunch with students daily to discuss their views on the courses and programs he has been so instrumental in advancing. Mr. President, Father Hesburgh's life stands as an example of the type of service, dedication, and faith that the Congressional Gold Medal was meant to commemorate. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Bayh and myself in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bayh in introducing legislation to bestow a Congressional Gold Medal on Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. In 1952, at the age of 35, Father Hesburgh became the fifteenth president of the University of Notre Dame. He served in that position for a remarkable 35 years. At the time of his retirement in 1987, he had the longest tenure among active American university presidents. Father Hesburgh's leadership and vision, together with the hard work of faculty, staff, alumni, and students, built Notre Dame into one of the premier universities in the United States. In you ask any Golden-domer, they will tell you that Father Hesburgh's contributions to the University of Notre Dame are as big as the 13-floor library that bears his name. Notre Dame grew exponentially in research funding and in endowment during Father Hesburgh's presidency. When he assumed the office in 1952, Notre Dame served fewer than 5,000 students. Today it is an internationally recognized university of nearly 10,000 students engaged in every imaginable academic discipline. More importantly, through his example and direction, Father Hesburgh inspired the university community to pursue not only academic excellence and international prominence, but also justice and spiritual meaning. Few universities have succeeded at creating an environment so committed to public service and so rich in its dialogue between the intellectual and the spiritual. As Father Hesburgh worked to build the University of Notre Dame into what it is today, he simultaneously answered the call to serve his nation and the world. His career has embodied the principle of public service that he espoused at Notre Dame. Father Hesburgh has held a remarkable 15 Presidential appointments over the years, covering such diverse topics as the peaceful uses of atomic energy and campus unrest. He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957, and he chaired the commission from 1969-1972. All the while he remained a national leader in education, serving on many commissions and study groups. He chaired the International Federation of Catholic Universities from 1963 to 1970. In this position and through his writings, he was instrumental in redefining the importance of international studies in higher education and the nature and mission of a contemporary Catholic university. Father Hesburgh also served four Popes as a Vatican representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international assemblies. The problems of underdeveloped nations have been a special interest of Father Hesburgh. He joined the board of the Overseas Development Council in 1971. His fund-raising work as Chairman helped avert mass starvation in Cambodia in 1979 and 1980. He also chaired the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy between 1979 and 1981. The recommendations of the Commission became the basis of legislation five years later. Father Hesburgh's lengthy list of awards include the Medal of Freedom, bestowed by President Johnson in 1964. He is also the recipient of 135 honorary degrees, the most ever awarded to an American. In retirement, Father Hesburgh has become a best-selling author. He still plays a major role in the development of higher education through the institutes he was instrumental in founding at Notre Dame, including the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Father Hesburgh chairs the advisory committee for both institutes. Despite his innumerable accomplishments, Father Hesburgh has always remained grounded in the campus life of Notre Dame University. He continues to frequently lecture and preside at mass. He talks with everyone who approaches him and still loves having lunch with students daily to discuss their views on the courses and programs he has been so instrumental in advancing. Mr. President, Father Hesburgh's life stands as an example of the type of service, dedication, and faith that the Congressional Gold Medal was meant to commemorate. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Bayh and myself in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, over the Memorial Day weekend, a series of events and memorial services were held in Indianapolis honoring our nation's Medal of Honor winners. Nearly 100 of all of the living Medal of Honor recipients came to Indiana to participate in the ceremonies as honored guests. In addition to paying tribute to these heroes and celebrating their remarkable accomplishments with a healthy dose of Hoosier hospitality, a new memorial to the Medal of Honor winners was dedicated. This memorial is only one of its kind in the nation. All of this was made possible by countless numbers of volunteers who worked tirelessly to carry out this program that was initiated and undertaken by IPALCO Enterprises of Indianapolis. Following this remarkable weekend. I received a letter from Major General Robert G. Moorhead, USA (Ret.), who through his words captured the sentiments of many of my State who were a part of these historic and moving events. At this time, Mr. President, I ask that an excerpt from General Moorhead's letter be printed in the Record. The excerpt follows. As the last days of the 20th century continue to unfold, Memorial Day weekend in the capital of Indiana was one to remember. Nearly 100 Medal of Honor recipients were guests for a series of stirring tributes. These included a solemn Memorial Service; the dedication of the only memorial to recipients of the Medal of Honor; grand marshals in the IPALCO 500 Festival Parade; an outdoor concert by the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra; and a parade lap around the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway oval prior to the start of the race. As the 20th century draws to a close, many wonder if the nation has lost sight of the sacrifices which have been made to preserve freedom. After this Memorial Day weekend in Indianapolis, my heart remains swollen with pride in our land and my fellow citizens. The reception given these ordinary men who did extraordinary things can never be equaled. I am especially proud of the untold hundreds of volunteers who gave of their time and talent to make these events possible. Memorial Day Weekend 1999 did much to convince me that our nation's freedom loving spirit is alive and well. It also underscored the true meaning of ``Hoosier Hospitality.'' Sincerely, MG Robert G. Moorhead, USA Ret.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. The National Endowment for Democracy for the last 18 years has made grants to organizations all over the world to boost democracy in the most critical areas. It came about during the Reagan administration, in which the genius of the plan, of pulling together representatives of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the National Chamber of Commerce, and AFL-CIO, brought checks and balances within our own political spectrum but outside the State Department, outside the Government. For the last 18 years, these grants have not been politicized. As a matter of fact, as there are areas of concern that come to the board of the National Endowment, each of the four groups is asked to meet the challenge, to offer alternatives competitively for peer review, and then review by staff, and finally votes by members. I have been privileged to serve for the last 8 years on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. At each meeting I have examined over 100 of these grants. They come, each time, with really superior effort by four entities we can count on, the two party institutes in the Chamber and the labor people of this country. I see no need to amend that process. It is a process that has worked well. It is a process that has not been politicized. It has a good track record. If the Senator's amendment is adopted, we will inevitably have a fairly large bureaucracy of people sifting through grants from all sources. Grants do come from some 250 different entities and formulate at least a third of the grants that are awarded by the board. Some of these are worthy and some are not so worthy, but we can count upon quality of response, and I think that is important. It is a situation of trying to fix something that is not broke, and I hope Senators will resist that impulse. There is not a compelling need for change. The amendment did not have any type of airing in a hearing for examination and for testimony by witnesses on either or all sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.