[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S590-S617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF MADELEINE KORBEL ALBRIGHT, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report Executive Calendar No.
1.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Madeleine Korbel
Albright, of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, am I correct there is a 2-hour time
agreement on the nomination?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may
require.
Mr. President, today the Senate will fulfill its constitutional duty
on the nomination of Madeleine Albright to serve as Secretary of State
of the United States. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations met for
more than 6 hours on January 8, to consider this nomination. During
that hearing, the committee heard from then Secretary of State Warren
Christopher, who presented Ambassador Albright, and I think that is the
first time in history that an outgoing Secretary has presented to a
committee the nominee to succeed him. In any case, Secretary
Christopher presented her, and the nominee, Mrs. Albright, was
questioned extensively by all members of the committee on a broad range
of national security issues.
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was agreed to keep the record
open until the close of business on January 10, so Senators could
submit written questions to the nominee. And twelve Senators did submit
more than 200 such questions, all of which were answered in writing by
Ambassador Albright.
The committee still has an outstanding document request concerning
Somalia, and we fully expect that the administration will cooperate and
comply with that request, as the administration has promised to do.
In any case, this past Monday, January 20, after members had spent
several days examining the written responses to questions, the
committee met in a business meeting to consider the nomination. By a
vote of 18 to nothing, unanimously, the Committee on Foreign Relations
favorably reported the Albright nomination.
There are Senators who support this nomination but who, nonetheless,
have honest disagreements with Ambassador Albright on major foreign
policy issues. As I mentioned in the hearing myself, while I do not
doubt that Ambassador Albright is sincere, on some issues I believe her
to be sincerely wrong. Some of those differences were discussed during
the hearing, others in private. And we will continue to discuss them
after she is confirmed, which I am certain she will be.
Notwithstanding our differences, Mrs. Albright is a lady who
understands Congress. She understands the important role that Congress
must play in developing U.S. foreign policy. However, my support for
the nominee should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of the
administration's conduct of foreign policy. It would be insincere of me
if I pretended otherwise. Many Americans, among them myself, hope that
in the area of foreign policy, the next 4 years will not produce a
sequel to the travail of the first 4 years.
After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the White House,
the United States had once again become the undisputed leader of the
free world. Our friends followed us, and our enemies, the enemies of
freedom, thanks to Presidents Reagan and Bush, feared and respected the
United States, because we were strong. The emphasis was on our
constitutional requirement as a tripartite Government, to make sure
that this Nation would lead the world as a strong, strong democracy.
Many of those important gains have been neutralized by a foreign
policy too often vacillating and insecure; a foreign policy that has
responded to world events, rather than shaping world events. And it is
quite revealing when this administration, as it often does, boasts that
the invasion of Haiti was a great foreign policy accomplishment.
Mr. President, sending American soldiers into harm's way on a tiny
Caribbean island with no vital interest at stake to replace one group
of thugs with another group of thugs does not seem to me to be much of
an accomplishment. In any event, the Haiti excursion, at last count,
has cost the American taxpayers more than $2 billion.
[[Page S591]]
From there the list goes on and on: from Bosnia, where the United
States subcontracted to the terrorist regime in Iran our
responsibilities to help the Bosnians defend against genocide; to
China, where vacillation led Beijing to believe it could get away with
bullying Taiwan; to Somalia, where an uncertain United States policy
resulted in the tragic and unnecessary deaths of 18 American Rangers;
to Iraq, where our CIA Director himself admitted that Saddam Hussein is
now politically stronger than ever before.
Time and time again, during the past 4 years, a message of weakened
resolve was sent around the world, and with tragic results.
History teaches us one unmistakably clear lesson, I think, Mr.
President, that being that the security of the American people is
always less certain when our adversaries doubt our resolve, and our
adversaries very much doubt our resolve at this moment.
If confirmed, Ambassador Albright must move swiftly and decisively to
reverse that trend, and we have discussed it. As I said earlier, she is
a strong lady, she is a courageous lady. She has proved that, and she
is going to have to continue to push for strength of the United States.
She must bring strength and courage and coherence and direction and
fresh ideas to America's foreign policy.
Let's face it, one of her most critical responsibilities, if
confirmed--and she will be--will be that the responsibility of advising
the President when and where and under what conditions to commit
American forces to combat or to dangerous missions abroad. Senator
Chuck Hagel, a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam war and one of the
newest members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, properly
pressed nominee Albright on this very point during the hearing, as did
another distinguished Senator, John Ashcroft. I applaud these two
Senators for their perseverance on this issue, because their concerns
are shared by many Senators and millions of the American people.
We must make certain that never again will American troops be sent
into harm's way unless and until there is a clearly defined and precise
mission and exit strategy and a clear American national security
interest at stake. The debacle in Somalia vividly demonstrated that
assertive multilateralism is no way to promote any conceivable American
national security interest.
Mr. President, Ambassador Albright, based on her testimony, and I
think on her career, appears to understand that concern. We have
discussed it, and I am sure other Senators have discussed it with her
as well. She acknowledged to the committee that with respect to the use
of U.S. troops overseas, she has, and I quote her, ``learned many
lessons.'' And I thank the Lord for that.
She further said she is ``deeply regretful of the lives lost in
Somalia.'' Moreover, she assured the committee that she would ``never
advise using American forces where other means are available, where
there is not the support of Congress and the people, where there is not
a possibility of or where there is no exit strategy, and where there is
not the likelihood or the reality of winning.'' End of quote,
Ambassador Albright.
Actions speak louder than words, of course, and we will be watching
her closely. She knows that. She expects that. We will watch her to
ensure that this administration has, in fact, learned from the
disasters of the past 4 years.
Another key responsibility of the next Secretary of State will be to
reform and restructure the antiquated foreign policy bureaucracy. The
104th Congress passed major legislation to streamline our foreign
policy apparatus and eliminate three unnecessary, bloated, and outdated
Federal bureaucracies, one of which was described by its proponents in
the 1960's as a ``temporary'' Federal agency. It is like Ronald Reagan
said: Nothing is so near eternal life as a temporary Federal agency.
But these agencies were promised to be in the 1950's and 1960's
temporary, and they are still around spending money, in so many, many
cases, unwisely.
Our plan last year, and the plan that will be submitted this year,
will save the American people more than a billion dollars. Instead of
endorsing that legislation last year and the year before, which was
vigorously supported and endorsed by five former Secretaries of State,
the administration opposed it every step of the way. In fact, the
administration, while trashing our proposal, never came forward with a
proposal of its own, despite promises to do so by the administration.
Vice President Gore, who served in the Senate and whom all of us
like, issued a statement on January 27, 1995, promising the American
people a plan to streamline the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy and
save, in his words--these are not my words, these are Al Gore's words--
to save $5 billion over 5 years.
But 2 years have passed and the distinguished Vice President has yet
to put forward any such proposal. I am hopeful that Madeleine Albright
will prod our friend and former colleague, Al Gore, and get to work
with us on this problem, because it is a jointly realized problem.
We must work together, and I hope I have indicated already, and some
of the rest of us, that we want to work together. I pledge to do that.
The support for our plan has not diminished, it has grown, among the
American people.
If Madeleine Albright is confirmed, I intend to schedule an early
meeting with her and other key Senators for the purpose of working
together and reaching agreement on a bipartisan plan to restructure our
foreign policy institutions to meet the new challenges we will face in
our next century.
The point is this: Republican or Democrat--it doesn't matter--none of
us should be willing to stand by and allow America to enter a new
millennium with antiquated foreign policy institutions built, let's
face it, to fight the cold war. And mark my words, if I have anything
to do with it, we will not do so.
Mrs. Albright assured the committee that she will keep an open mind
as she discusses this matter, and others. I intend to hold her to that
commitment to work with us, to consult with us and cooperate with us so
that we can work together for the goals that she and we have discussed
and mutually agreed to.
Mrs. Albright must also work with Congress to achieve serious and
lasting reform at the United Nations. The selection of a new Secretary
General is an important first step, but it is only one step.
I think the American people are tired of all the rhetoric from the
international community and the State Department blaming the United
States for the United Nations' so-called fiscal crisis. One quarter of
every dollar that the United Nations receives for its budget comes from
the taxpayers of the United States. Over all, American taxpayers
contribute upwards of $3.5 billion to the United Nations. By contrast,
more than half of the United Nations members pay just one-hundredth of
1 percent of the United Nations regular budget. Senators must keep that
in mind as we begin discussions on U.N. reform. Many countries have no
incentive to reform because they gain more from the United Nations than
they put into it.
So let me summarize in conclusion, Mr. President. Mrs. Albright knows
that I intend to work with her. I think she understands that the entire
Foreign Relations Committee intends to work with her. I intend to also
work with the new Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, and with Senator Rod
Grams, who is our congressional delegate to the United Nations, who has
developed an important expertise on this issue. We will work with all
of these and other Members of Congress to bring true reform to the
United Nations, which is long overdue and badly needed.
I believe that on balance Mrs. Albright is well qualified for the
post of Secretary of State. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot
of things on our agenda, and I look forward to working with her in
moving our agenda forward.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from California
is recognized to speak on the nomination under the time controlled by
the minority.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for
his
[[Page S592]]
comments and also for the speed with which he processed this
nomination. I think it is very important and significant that he has
done that, and it certainly speaks for the best interests of
bipartisanship.
Mr. President, as the only woman on the Foreign Relations Committee,
I consider this to be a historic appointment indeed. I rise to say that
I am proud to indicate my very enthusiastic support for Madeleine
Albright to be confirmed before this body as Secretary of State.
I want to commend President Clinton because he was certainly faced
with an array of very qualified candidates. But I think he chose one of
the very, very best. Anyone who heard her thoughtful responses to some
6 hours of questioning during her confirmation hearing would have been
impressed by her knowledge, her eloquence and her skill. I fully expect
Ambassador Albright to be a truly superb Secretary of State.
I look forward to working with her as various foreign policy issues
come before the Senate of the United States. It is difficult to imagine
a background and a body of experience better suited to the person we
call on to be our Nation's chief diplomat and the President's chief
foreign policy advisor. Madeleine Albright knows firsthand the
``streets'' of foreign policy, how actions by governments affect the
lives of individuals. Her enormous intellect, her personal experience,
her plain speaking, I think, will be huge assets.
As the United States approaches the 21st century, I believe it is
crucial that our foreign policy be conducted in a bipartisan manner.
The practice of reinventing the wheel of foreign policy every 4 years
or at least with every change of administration has been difficult on
our allies and weakens American credibility as the strongest nation on
Earth.
Madeleine Albright holds a unique opportunity to cement a bipartisan
foreign policy. If she can accomplish this, her legacy to this Nation
and the world will be significant. One of the most complex issues that
she will face, and the largest single area that I believe needs focused
attention, is the entire Pacific rim. With 60 percent of the people of
the world now living on the shores of the Pacific and American trade
with the Pacific rim nations three times that of the Atlantic, the
administration's No. 1 priority in foreign policy should be to maintain
a strong and positive presence in Asia.
As part of this effort, the United States must build our most
important, but still largely undeveloped, bilateral relationship--that
with the People's Republic of China--into one of partnership and
cooperation in our many areas of mutual interest.
Ambassador Albright's qualifications to be Secretary of State are
unimpeachable. For the past 4 years she has served with distinction as
the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a member of
the President's Cabinet, and a member of the staff of the National
Security Council.
She has also headed one of Washington's foremost think tanks, served
as professor of international affairs at Georgetown University's School
of Foreign Service, and holds a doctorate from Columbia University.
And, I might add, she served as a staff member for one of the true
giants of the U.S. Senate, Edmund Muskie, who himself went on to serve
as Secretary of State.
Beyond her professional accomplishments, her life--having fled
Czechoslovakia at the dawn of the Second World War--provides a lesson
in the values that we as Americans hold most dear and for the role in
the world that America, at its best, can play.
As the first woman to serve as Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright's nomination will open up new doors for all women, not just in
this country, but around the globe, in places unaccustomed to seeing
women in high office. Whenever a woman crosses a threshold into an area
that has been predominantly held by men, and performs effectively, the
doors open for women everywhere.
I take particular pride in casting my vote for Ambassador Madeleine
Albright. It is a tremendous step forward in our country for a woman to
be named the Nation's top diplomat. As consequential as that is, in
Madeleine Albright's case it is really a secondary consideration,
because she is so eminently qualified for the job.
Although I am sure it is unnecessary to do so, I take pride in urging
all of my colleagues to support this outstanding nomination.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and, Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of
Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State. Ms. Albright brings a
lifetime of credentials to the job. She has superb experience as a
practitioner of the craft of diplomacy, and a wide knowledge of outside
opinion on the range of options and potential solutions that confront
us in given international situations. More than that, and most
appropriate for the rather free-wheeling, often confusing international
environment that we currently face, she is an initiator and an exponent
of an energetic and forward-looking American leadership in world
affairs.
Ms. Albright acquitted herself admirably as our most recent
Ambassador to the United Nations. She is, I believe, sensitive to the
role of Congress in formulating foreign policies, certainly partly
because she has served as a foreign policy staffer in the Senate to the
late Senator Ed Muskie of Maine. She has served in various posts in
previous administrations, and stayed active on the faculty of
Georgetown University while the other party controlled the White House
and foreign policy making apparatus.
At the United Nations, Ambassador Albright, as a matter of practice
and of principle, put American interests first, as she should have, but
also introduced overdue cost analysis as a requirement in the
development of Security Council resolutions pertaining to the
commitment of United Nations contingents abroad. She made the American
weight felt in the Security Council, not the least in her successful
effort to bring a new Secretary General to power in New York.
There were, in the early years of the first administration of
President Clinton, some growing pains in sorting out the role of the
United States in the disorder that we confronted in the aftermath of
the cold war, particularly as it related to the proper approach for
both the United Nations and the United States in peacekeeping and so-
called peace enforcing operations. We all learned some lessons from the
experience of our involvement in Somalia, and the administration
learned some lessons, as well. Ambassador Albright moved forcefully to
resolve those lessons and established a laudable and workable mechanism
for frequent consultation between her staff in New York, the State
Department here in Washington, and the interested Senators and
committees here in the Congress. I think that she believes, as I do,
that early and substantive consultations between the administration and
the Congress are essential for the successful conduct of American
foreign affairs, and I fully expect the early development of an
effective working relationship in that regard after she is confirmed by
the Senate.
I congratulate Ms. Albright for her selection as the first female
nominee to be an American Secretary of State, and I look forward to
working with her during her tenure at the helm of the Department of
State and its far-flung operations around the globe.
I shall cast my vote for Madeleine Albright this afternoon, and I
shall do it with enthusiasm and with faith in her ability to perform
the job and to perform it well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 45 minutes, 10
seconds remaining.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will yield myself 15 minutes.
Mr. President, let me begin, while both my senior colleagues are on
the floor here, by complimenting Senator
[[Page S593]]
Byrd on his ringing endorsement of Madeleine Albright. Senator Helms
and I have been around here a long while, 24 years. But that is a short
time compared to the senior Senator from West Virginia. We all know
that when he stands to take the floor and give his endorsement to a
candidate who requires confirmation, probably more than any other
Senator on this floor, the Chamber listens.
Madeleine Albright is a fine candidate, but she is also a lucky
candidate today to have such strong support from the Senator from West
Virginia, and, as well, she is fortunate to have the Senator from North
Carolina as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I publicly
thank him for how gracious he has been and for how he has expedited
this nomination. We all know he is a man of very strong convictions,
and we all know that when Senator Helms concludes that there is
something moving in the Senate too swiftly, or it is something he does
not support, he is, along with the Senator from West Virginia, maybe
the most effective person on the Republican side of the aisle in
slowing things down.
There was a lot of discussion in the press and a lot of discussion in
the Cloakrooms about whether or not Senator Helms was going to
cooperate. I am here to tell you that he has not only cooperated, he
has expedited it, and he has been, as always, the consummate gentleman
in the way in which he has dealt with his colleagues, the new ranking
member in particular, but the committee in general and the Senate as a
whole. I personally thank him for doing what I never doubted he would
do once he concluded he was going to get this on the floor early. I
want the record to note that we are moving on one of the two most
important Cabinet posts, and we are doing it before anything else has
happened in this body. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, to state the obvious, I strongly support Madeleine
Albright's nomination to become the 65th Secretary of State of the
United States of America. Obviously, along with others who have spoken,
I commend the President for nominating her.
There was a friend of ours who doesn't always like having a quote
attributed to him, but I must attribute every quote. I never want to
make that mistake again. I will not use his name, but I will
acknowledge that this is not emanating from me. We had a colleague who
served with the Senator from North Carolina and me for some years--and
I will tell him the name after I finish--who used to say, ``It is great
in politics when conscience and convenience cross paths.''
I would suggest that Madeleine Albright's nomination to be Secretary
of State meets that test like none other since I have been here. This
is truly a historic occasion. I know we do not and should not think in
terms of quotas and affirmative action. But the fact of the matter is
this is one of two remaining bastions where the mindset, I think, of a
foreign policy establishment, the mindset of the public, the mindset of
everyone, is that it is sort of the province of men. And that
stereotypical notion is, in large part because of the cooperation of
the Senator from North Carolina, about to end today. That does not mean
that makes anyone a good Secretary of State or makes her the most
qualified person. But that is where the conscience part comes in. It
just so happens that the woman we are about to confirm--God willing and
the creeks not rising--is also eminently qualified to be Secretary of
State.
I have been here too long to use phrases like ``this is the most
qualified person.'' There are 50 people maybe in America who are
qualified to do this job, and there are probably 10 as qualified, but
none more qualified than Madeleine Albright.
One of the things I think that has endeared her and recommended her
to Senator Helms and to me, both of us having served on the Foreign
Relations Committee for so long, is that we have encountered Madeleine
Albright in our official capacities and our personal political lives on
a number of other occasions, and we have found her, as professor, as
foreign policy adviser, and as a politically active academic, to be
extremely incisive, blunt, to the point, and honest with us in her
assessments. You have no idea--maybe you do, Mr. President, but the
longer you are here it will become even more apparent. I find that the
hardest speak to understand is foreign policy speak. And I sometimes
used to kid, after years of being the chairman or the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, I would say to the witness, ``You sound like
you are from the State Department.'' That means that you get a
nonanswer; never a wrong answer, but a nonanswer. Madeleine Albright is
very straightforward. And it is a welcome thing. We had that in other
Secretaries of State, Democrat and Republican. But it is always nice to
know.
In her 4 years as our Representative to the United Nations,
Ambassador Albright has ably demonstrated her qualifications to carry
American foreign policy into the 21st century. Her personal history,
her academic research and writing, her diplomatic experience, and her
political acumen make her uniquely qualified to lead this country in
working with our friends and allies--and our adversaries, and there are
some--to further our national interests and the ideals of freedom and
democracy that we espouse as a nation.
As we all know by now, Ambassador Albright was not born an American.
She and her family chose to come to these shores out of a deep
appreciation of what America stands for. She was born in
Czechoslovakia, which between the two world wars was the only country
in Central Europe to share our commitment to freedom and democracy.
She was twice forced to flee her native land, first in the wake of
the Nazi occupation, then 10 years later after a Communist coup. She
has seen first-hand the two worst forms of tyranny of this century, and
she vividly understands the importance of standing firm against
aggressors who seek to subvert freedom.
The young Madeleine Korbel earned a bachelor's degree from Wellesley
College in political science in 1959, worked briefly as a journalist,
then married and raised three bright, accomplished, and lovely
daughters, two of whom I have had the occasion to get to speak with and
get to know a little bit better.
At the same time she was raising her family, she attended graduate
school at Columbia University. In 1968, she earned her master's degree
and the certificate of the Russian Institute at Columbia. She went on
to receive her Ph.D. from Columbia in 1976.
With her doctorate in hand, she came to Washington to work for one of
the finest men ever to serve in this Senate--the late Senator from
Maine, Edmund Muskie, who himself went on to become Secretary of State.
As his chief legislative assistant, she gained an appreciation for the
role of the Senate in helping the President and the Secretary of State
craft American foreign policy, experience on which she will draw as we
work with her in the years ahead.
Ambassador Albright left Senator Muskie's staff in 1978 to work for
her former professor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on the staff of President
Carter's National Security Council. She then worked at two of the most
prestigious think-tanks in Washington--the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars--before becoming a professor at Georgetown University in 1982.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the official biography of Madeleine Albright.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Madeleine Korbel Albright
Madeleine Korbel Albright was appointed by President
Clinton on January 27, 1993, as the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations. President Clinton
elevated this position and made the Ambassador a member of
his Cabinet and a member of the National Security Council.
Prior to her appointment, Ambassador Albright was the
President of the Center for National Policy. The Center is a
non-profit research organization, formed in 1981 by
representatives from government, industry, labor and
education. Its mandate is to promote the study and discussion
of domestic and international issues.
As a Research Professor of International Affairs and
Director of the Women in Foreign Service Program at
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, she taught
undergraduate and graduate courses in international affairs,
U.S. foreign policy, Russian
[[Page S594]]
foreign policy, and Central and Eastern European politics,
and was responsible for developing and implementing programs
designed to enhance women's professional opportunities in
international affairs.
In 1981-82 Ambassador Albright was awarded a fellowship at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the
Smithsonian following an international competition in which
she wrote about the role of the press in political changes in
Poland in 1980-82.
She also served as a Senior Fellow in Soviet and Eastern
European Affairs at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, conducting research in developments
and trends in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
From 1978-1981 Ambassador Albright was a Staff Member on
the National security Council, as well as a White House staff
member, where she was responsible for foreign policy
legislation.
From 1976-1978, she served as Chief Legislative Assistant
to Senator Edmund S. Muskie.
Other professional experience includes Board Member of the
National Endowment for Democracy, Board Member of the
International Media Fund, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to
Presidential Candidate Michael S. Dukakis, Foreign Policy
Advisor to the Mondale-Ferraro campaign, Vice-Chair of the
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,
Member of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council of
the United States, Member of the Board of Trustees of
Wellesley College, Member of the Board of Trustees of the
Black Student Fund, Member of the U.S. National Commission
for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, Member of the Board of Trustees of
the Washington Urban League, Member of the Board of
Directors of the Center for National Policy, Member of the
Chapter of the Washington National Cathedral, Member of
the Board of Trustees of Williams College, Member of the
Board of Trustees of the Democratic Forum, Member of the
Executive Committee of D.C. Citizens for Better Public
Education, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Beauvoir
School, Public Relations Staff of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, and Reporter on the Rolla Daily News, Rolla,
Missouri.
Awarded a B.A. from Wellesley College with honors in
Political Science, she studied at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, received a
Certificate from the Russian Institute at Columbia
University, and her Masters and Doctorate from Columbia
University's Department of Public Law and Government.
Ambassador Albright is fluent in French and Czech, with
good speaking and reading abilities in Russian and Polish.
Selected writings include ``Poland, the Role of the Press
in Political Change'' (New York: Praeger with the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University,
Washington, D.C. 1983); ``The Role of the Press in Political
Change: Czechoslovakia 1968'' (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia
University 1976); and ``The Soviet Diplomatic Service:
Profile of an Elite'' (Master's Thesis, Columbia University
1968).
Ambassador Albright has three daughters.
For future correspondence, the Ambassador may be reached at
either her Washington, D.C. or New York, offices: Suite 6333,
Department of State, 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
20520-6319, or U.S. Mission to the United Nations, 799 United
Nations Plaza, New York, New York 10017.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the 1980's as the Communist countries of
Central and Eastern Europe were casting off the Soviet yoke, then-
Professor Albright conducted research into the attitudes of the people
of these countries, and she wrote about the need to assist them in
their transition from communism to freedom.
That is where Senator Helms and I and others on the Foreign Relations
Committee got to see her again because she came and testified about
that research and the polling data that she conducted.
Her academic and personal understanding of these issues will allow
her to formulate policies to encourage the continued spread of
political and economic freedom throughout the world as she attempts to
implement this administration's foreign policy.
At the United Nations, Ambassador Albright successfully advanced and
defended American interests and enlisted the support of others for our
policies. Her straight talk and tireless commitment won her the
admiration of Democrats and Republicans alike. She recognizes that
while it is sometimes in America's interest to act alone, always acting
alone is ineffective and an unnecessary use of our resources.
Two weeks ago, Ambassador Albright came before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and outlined a comprehensive framework for American
foreign policy into the next century, one in which none of us, I think,
is likely to accept wholesale. But that is the way the process is
supposed to work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her insightful statement
to our committee be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Secretary of State-Designate Madeleine K. Albright Before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--January 8, 1997
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a great
honor and pleasure to be here with you this morning. I want
to begin by thanking the President for his trust in
nominating me to this high and very challenging position.
I am very grateful to Secretary Christopher both for his
kind words of introduction and for the opportunity he has
given me these past four years to observe how a steady and
determined diplomat conducts business.
And I appreciate very much the Committee's courtesy in
scheduling this hearing so promptly.
Mr. Chairman, we have reached a point more than halfway
between the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the start
of a new century. Our nation is respected and at peace. Our
alliances are vigorous. Our economy is strong. And from the
distant corners of Asia, to the emerging democracies of
Central Europe and Africa, to the community of democracies
that exists within our own hemisphere--and to the one
impermanent exception to that community, Castro's Cuba--
American institutions and ideals are a model for those who
have, or who aspire to, freedom.
All this is no accident, and its continuation is by no
means inevitable. Democratic progress must be sustained as it
was built--by American leadership. And our leadership must be
sustained if our interests are to be protected around the
world.
Do not doubt, those interests are not geopolitical
abstractions, they are real.
It matters to our children whether they grow up in a world
where the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have
been minimized or allowed to run out of control.
It matters to the millions of Americans who work, farm or
invest whether the global economy continues to create good
new jobs and open new markets, or whether--through
miscalculation or protectionism--it begins to spiral
downward.
It matters to our families whether illegal drugs continue
to pour into our neighborhoods from overseas.
It matters to Americans who travel abroad or go about their
daily business at home whether the scourge of international
terrorism is reduced.
It matters to our workers and businesspeople whether they
will be unfairly forced to compete against companies that
violate fair labor standards, despoil the environment or gain
contracts not through competition but corruption.
And it matters to us all whether through inattention or
indifference, we allow small wars to grow into large ones
that put our safety and freedom at risk.
To defeat the dangers and seize the opportunities, we must
be more than audience, more even than actors, we must be the
authors of the history of our age.
A half century ago, after the devastation caused by
Depression, holocaust and war, it was not enough to say that
what we were against had failed. Leaders such as Truman,
Marshall and Vandenberg were determined to build a lasting
peace. And together with our allies, they forged a set of
institutions that would defend freedom, rebuild economies,
uphold law and preserve peace.
Today, it is not enough for us to say that Communism has
failed. We must continue building a new framework--adapted to
the demands of a new century--that will protect our citizens
and our friends; reinforce our values; and secure our future.
In so doing, we must direct our energies, not as our
predecessors did, against a single virulent ideology. We face
a variety of threats, some as old as ethnic conflict; some as
new as letter bombs; some as long-term as global warming;
some as dangerous as nuclear weapons falling into the wrong
hands.
To cope with such a variety of threats, we will need a full
range of foreign policy tools.
That is why our armed forces must remain the best-led,
best-trained, best-equipped and most respected in the world.
And as President Clinton has pledged, and our military
leaders ensure, they will.
It is also why we need first-class diplomacy. Force, and
the credible possibility of its use, are essential to defend
our vital interests and to keep America safe. But force alone
can be a blunt instrument, and there are many problems it
cannot solve.
To be effective, force and diplomacy must complement and
reinforce each other. For there will be many occasions, in
many places, where we will rely on diplomacy to protect our
interests, and we will expect our diplomats to defend those
interests with skill, knowledge and spine.
If confirmed, one of my most important tasks will be to
work with Congress to ensure that we have the superb
diplomatic representation that our people deserve and our
interests demand. We cannot have that on the cheap. We must
invest the resources needed to maintain American leadership.
Consider the stakes. We are talking here about one percent of
our federal budget, but that one percent may well determine
fifty
[[Page S595]]
percent of the history that is written about our era.
Unfortunately, as Senator Lugar recently pointed out,
currently, ``our international operations are underfunded and
understaffed.'' He noted, as well, that not only our
interests, but our efforts to balance the budget would be
damaged if American disengagement were to result in ``nuclear
terrorism, a trade war, an energy crisis, a major regional
conflict . . . or some other preventable disaster.
Mr. Chairman, we are the world's richest, strongest, most
respected nation. We are also the largest debtor to the
United Nations and the international financial institutions.
We provide a smaller percentage of our wealth to support
democracy and growth in the developing world than any other
industrialized nation.
And over the past four years, the Department of State has
cut more than 2000 employees, downgraded positions, closed
more than 30 embassies or consulates, and deferred badly-
needed modernization of infrastructure and communications. We
have also suffered a 30% reduction in our foreign assistance
programs since 1991.
It is said that we have moved from an era where the big
devour the small to an era where the fast devour the slow. If
that is the case, your State Department, with its obsolete
technology, $300 million in deferred maintenance and a
shrinking base of skilled personnel, is in trouble.
If confirmed, I will strive to fulfill my obligation to
manage our foreign policy effectively and efficiently. I will
work with this Committee and the Congress to ensure that the
American public gets full value for each tax dollar spent.
But I will also want to ensure that our foreign policy
successfully promotes and protects the interests of the
American people.
In addition, I will want to work with you to spur continued
reform and to pay our bills at the United Nations, an
organization that Americans helped create, that reflects
ideals that we share and that serves goals of stability, law
and international cooperation that are in our interests.
The debate over adequate funding for foreign policy is not
new in America. It has been joined repeatedly from the time
the Continental Congress sent Ben Franklin to Paris, to the
proposals for Lend Lease and the Marshall Plan that bracketed
World War II, to the start of the SEED and Nunn-Lugar
programs a few years ago. In each case, history has looked
more kindly on those who argued for our engagement than on
those who said we just could not afford to lead.
Mr. Chairman, any framework for American leadership must
include measures to control the threats posed by weapons of
mass destruction and terror; to seize the opportunities that
exist for setting dangerous regional conflicts; to maintain
America as the hub of an expanding global economy; and to
defend cherished principles of democracy and law.
At the center of that framework, however, are our key
alliances and relationships. These are the bonds that hold
together not only our foreign policy, but the entire
international system. When we are able to act cooperatively
with the other leading nations, we create a dynamic web of
principle, power and purpose that elevates standards and
propels progress around the globe. This is our opportunity,
for in the post Cold War era, big power diplomacy is not a
zero-sum game.
the trans-atlantic partnership
A foremost example is the trans-Atlantic partnership.
It is a central lesson of this century that America must
remain a European power. We have an interest in European
security, because we wish to avoid the instability that drew
five million Americans across the Atlantic to fight in two
world wars. We have an interest in European democracy,
because it was the triumph of freedom there that ended the
Cold War. We have an interest in European prosperity, because
our own prosperity depends on having partners that are open
to our exports, investment and ideas.
Today, thanks to the efforts of President Clinton and
Secretary Christopher, American leadership in Europe is on
solid ground.
European institutions are evolving in directions that are
making the continent more free, unified and peaceful than at
any time in history.
Our key bilateral relationships, albeit spirited at times,
are as strong and resilient as they have ever been.
The terrible carnage in Bosnia has ended.
The Partnership for Peace has broadened cooperation on
security matters.
And there is continued progress on political and market
reforms within Central Europe and the New Independent States.
If confirmed, I will be returning to this Committee often
to ask your support for our vision of an integrated, stable
and democratic Europe.
In July, at the NATO summit in Madrid, the alliance will
discuss European security, including NATO adaptation to new
missions and structures, a framework for enhanced
consultation and cooperation with Russia, and enlargement.
The purpose of enlargement is to do for Europe's east what
NATO did 50 years ago for Europe's west: to integrate new
democracies, defeat old hatreds, provide confidence in
economic recovery and deter conflict.
Those who say NATO enlargement should wait until a military
threat appears miss the main point. NATO is a not a wild west
posse that we mobilize only when grave danger is near. It is
a permanent alliance, a linchpin of stability, designed to
prevent serious threats from ever arising.
To those who worry about enlargement dividing Europe, I say
that NATO cannot and should not preserve the old Iron Curtain
as its eastern frontier. That was an artificial division,
imposed upon proud nations, some of which are now ready to
contribute to the continent's security. What NATO must and
will do is keep open the door to membership to every European
nation that can shoulder alliance responsibilities and
contribute to its goals, while building a strong and enduring
partnership with all of Europe's democracies.
Building a more cooperative and integrated Europe will be
one of many issues that President Clinton will be discussing
with President Yeltsin during his visit here to the United
States in March. A democratic Russia can and must be a strong
partner in achieving this shared goal.
We know that Russia remains in the midst of a wrenching
transition, but gains made during the past five years are
increasingly irreversible. Despite the threats posed by
corruption and crime, open markets and democratic
institutions have taken hold. And last summer marked the
first fully democratic election of national leaders in
Russia's long history.
President Yeltsin's challenge in his second term will be to
restore the momentum behind internal reforms and accelerate
Russia's integration with the west. We have a profound
interest in encouraging that great country to remain on a
democratic course, to respect fully the sovereignty of its
neighbors and to join with us in addressing a full range of
regional and global issues.
Our deepening friendship with a democratic Ukraine is also
fundamental to Europe's integration. Ukraine was the first of
the New Independent States to transfer power from one
democratically-elected government to another. And, under
President Kuchma, it has launched ambitious economic reforms
that have subdued inflation and prevented economic collapse.
In our relations both with Russia and Ukraine, the
binational commissions established with Vice-President Gore
as the lead U.S. representative will serve as a valuable aid
for setting the agenda, and facilitating cooperation across a
broad range of endeavors.
Finally, the future of European stability and democracy
depends, as well, on continued implementation of the Dayton
Accords.
Although IFOR completed its military tasks brilliantly in
Bosnia, more time is needed for economic reconstruction and
political healing. SFOR's goal is to provide the time for
peace to become self-sustaining.
Although the full promise of Dayton is not yet fulfilled,
much has changed during the past 13 months. The fighting has
stopped, peaceful elections have been held, and the framework
for national democratic institutions has taken shape.
Much of this is due to American leadership. Our plan now,
in cooperation with our many partners, is to consolidate and
build on those gains. Our strategy is to continue diminishing
the need for an international military presence by
establishing a stable military balance, improving judicial
and legal institutions, helping more people return safely to
their homes and seeing that more of those indicted as war
criminals are arrested and prosecuted.
Given the ongoing challenges, it is encouraging to note the
history-making dimension of the process set in motion by the
Dayton Accords.
Today, in Bosnia, virtually every nation in Europe is
working together to bring stability to a region where
conflict earlier this century tore the continent apart.
This reflects a sharp departure from the spheres of
influence or balance of power diplomacy of the past, and an
explicit rejection of politics based on ethnic
identification. And it validates the premise of the
Partnership for Peace by demonstrating the growth of a common
understanding within Europe of how a common sense of security
may be achieved.
The experience of IFOR and now SFOR in Bosnia heightens the
potential for security cooperation among the full range of
NATO and non-NATO European states. In Bosnia, soldiers from
NATO, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Romania and many other nations
trust, defend and depend on each other. Our challenge is to
extend that spirit to other joint endeavors and to keep it
thriving long after SFOR concludes its work.
European stability depends in large measure on continued
American engagement and leadership. And as history attests,
European stability is also vital to our national interests.
As a result, we will remain engaged, we will continue to
lead, we will strengthen our alliances and we will continue
to build with our democratic partners a Europe in which every
nation is free and every free nation is our partner.
promoting mutual security and prosperity in asia
Mr. Chairman, America must remain a European power. We
must, and will, remain a Pacific power, as well.
Asia is a continent undergoing breathtaking economic
expansion and measured, but steady, movement in the direction
of democracy. Its commercial vigor reinforces our own and
contributes to the vital interest we have in its security.
This is, after all, an area in which America has fought three
wars
[[Page S596]]
during the past six decades, and in which 100,000 American
Troops are based.
President Clinton has elevated this dynamic region on our
agenda, and I plan to devote much of my attention to its
promise and perils.
Our priorities here are to maintain the strength of our
core alliances while successfully managing our multi-faceted
relationship with China.
Because of our commitment to regional security, we have
maintained our forward-deployed military presence in the
Western Pacific. We are encouraging regional efforts to
settle territorial and other disputes without violence. We
are working hard to open markets for American goods and
services, both bilaterally and through APEC, which the
President lifted to the summit level. We are broadening our
diplomatic and security ties in Southeast Asia, home to the
world's fastest growing economies. And we will continue to
promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights
and the spread of freedom.
Our closest and most wide-ranging bilateral relationship in
the region is with Japan, with whom we have strongly
reaffirmed our alliance.
We consult Japan regularly on a broad range of foreign
policy questions from security in Asia to development in
Africa. We appreciate its generous financial support for
peace efforts from Bosnia to the Middle East. And we are
working with Japan and another valued ally, the Republic of
Korea, to implement the Framework agreement freezing North
Korean development of nuclear arms. In recent weeks, we and
Seoul have worked together successfully to reduce tensions,
reinforce the nuclear freeze and improve prospects for
dialogue on the Peninsula.
I look forward, if confirmed, to visiting both Japan and
the Republic of Korea at an early date.
I am also looking forward to the visit here soon of the
Chinese Foreign Minister.
A strong bilateral relationship between the United States
and China is needed to expand areas of cooperation, reduce
the potential for misunderstanding and encourage China's full
emergence as a responsible member of the international
community.
To make progress, our two countries must act towards each
other on the basis of mutual frankness. We have important
differences, especially on trade, arms transfers and human
rights, including Tibet. We have concerns about Chinese
policy towards the reversion of Hong Kong. While adhering to
our one China policy, we will maintain robust unofficial ties
with Taiwan. But we also have many interests in common, and
have worked together on issues including the Korean
peninsula, crime, the global environment and nuclear testing.
U.S. policy towards China has long been an issue of
controversy in Congress and among the American people. There
are disagreements about the proper balancing of the various
elements of that policy. There should be no doubt, however,
about the importance of this relationship, and about the need
to pursue a strategy aimed at Chinese integration, not
isolation.
preventive defense through the control of deadly arms
The Cold War may be over, but the threat to our security
posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction has
only been reduced, not ended. Arms control and
nonproliferation remain a vital element in our foreign policy
framework.
With our leadership, much has been accomplished. Russian
warheads no longer target our homes. Nuclear weapons have
been removed from Belarus and Kazakhstan and in Ukraine, the
last missile silos are being planted over with sunflowers.
Iraq's nuclear capability has been dismantled, and North
Korea's frozen. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been
extended, indefinitely and without conditions. A
comprehensive ban on nuclear tests has been approved and a
chemical weapons ban will soon be in effect.
Mr. Chairman, these efforts to reduce the spread and number
of weapons of mass destruction contribute to what Defense
Secretary Perry has called ``preventive defense''. They are
designed to keep Americans safe. We pursue them not as favors
to others, but in support of our own national interests. But
arms control and nonproliferation are works in progress, and
we will need your help and that of this Committee and the
Senate to continue that progress.
First, we will be asking your consent to the ratification
of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC, before it enters
into force in late April.
As this Committee well knows, the CWC was begun under
President Reagan and negotiated under President Bush. It is
supported by many in both parties, by the business community
and by our military. The CWC is no panacea, but it will make
it more difficult for rogue states and others hostile to our
interests to develop or obtain chemical weapons. I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that we will be able to work together to get this
Treaty approved in time for the United States to be an
original party.
We will also be seeking your early approval of the CFE
Flank agreement, which is essential to sustain the CFR
Treaty, which in turn contributes mightily to European
security.
Overseas, we will be working with Russia to secure prompt
ratification by the Duma of the START II Treaty, and then to
pursue further reductions and limits on strategic nuclear
arms.
We will also continue efforts to fulfill the President's
call for negotiations leading to a worldwide ban on the use,
stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel
landmines. The humanitarian problems created by the misuse of
anti-personnel landmines can only be dealt with on a global
basis. In September, the President told the UN General
Assembly that ``our children deserve to walk the Earth in
safety.'' This will be a major arms control objective of the
next four years.
Arms control and nonproliferation are closely linked to our
policies toward rogue states. We have a major interest in
preventing weapons of mass destruction from being obtained by
regimes with a proven disrespect for the rule of law.
Accordingly, we will continue working to improve the security
and prevent the diversion of fissile materials. We will
continue to oppose strongly the sale or transfer of advanced
weapons or technologies to Iran. And we will insist on
maintaining tough UN sanctions against Iraq unless and until
that regime complies with relevant Security Council
resolutions.
vigorous diplomacy in support of peace
Mr. Chairman, the appropriate American role in helping to
end conflicts and respond to crises overseas has been debated
widely, not only in our time, but throughout American
history.
Because we have unique capabilities and unmatched power, it
is natural that others turn to us in time of emergency. We
have an unlimited number of opportunities to act around the
world. But we do not have unlimited resources, nor do we have
unlimited responsibilities. If we are to protect our own
interests and maintain our credibility, we have to weigh our
commitments carefully, and be selective and disciplined in
what we agree to do.
Recognizing this, we have a strong incentive to strengthen
other mechanisms for responding to emergencies and conflicts,
including the United Nations and regional organizations. We
should work closely with the entire network of public and
nongovernmental organizations that has evolved to predict,
prevent, contain and minimize the human and other costs of
natural and human-caused disaster. And we should insist that
other capable nations do their fair share financially,
technically and--if necessary--militarily.
The primary obligation of the United States is to its own
citizens. We are not a charity or a fire department. We will
defend firmly our own vital interests.
But we recognize that our interests and those of our allies
may also be affected by regional or civil wars, power vacuums
that create targets of opportunity for criminals and
terrorists, dire humanitarian emergencies and threats to
democracy. Then, as President Clinton said recently, ``The
United States cannot and should not try to solve every
problem, but where our interests are clear, our values are at
stake, (and) where we can make a difference, we must act and
we must lead.''
During the past four years, under President Clinton and
Secretary Christopher, the United States has been steadfast
in supporting the peacemakers over the bombthrowers in
historically troubled areas of the globe. Our goal has been
to build an environment in which threats to our security and
that of our allies are diminished, and the likelihood of
American forces being sent into combat is reduced.
We recognize that, in most of these situations, neither the
United States nor any other outside force can impose a
solution. But we can make it easier for those inclined
towards peace to take the risks required to achieve it.
As this statement is being prepared, sustained U.S.
diplomacy in the Middle East has helped to build a renewed
dialogue between Israel and its Palestinian partners,
producing significant progress on Israeli redeployment in
Hebron.
While an agreement is not yet in hand, the intensive
negotiations which have been conducted over the past three
months--including direct discussions between Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat--have restored a sense of
momentum and greater confidence between the sides. This
process began during the Washington summit called by
President Clinton last October and has been sustained and
advanced through our active diplomatic engagement.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat have
reaffirmed to President Clinton their determination to
continue their joint efforts for peace. The United States
will stand by them as they do.
Today, there remain two competing visions in the Middle
East. One is focused on the grievances and tragedies of the
past; the other on the possibilities of the future. An
agreement on Hebron would serve as a catalyst, strengthening
the supporters of peace. Under the President's leadership, we
intend to press vigorously on all tracks to realize a secure,
comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and her Arab
neighbors.
Throughout, we will be guided by America's unshakeable
commitment to Israel's security, and by our opposition to
those who would disrupt this process through terrorism and
violence.
Secretary Christopher leaves office after four years of
historic progress in facilitating peace in the Middle East.
While his presence will be missed, I will maintain fully the
State Department's commitment to an active U.S. role in this
long-troubled and strategic part of the globe.
[[Page S597]]
Across the Mediterranean in Cyprus, another longstanding
disagreement remains unresolved. In 1996, the parties moved
no closer to a final decision on the status of the island.
Moreover, disturbing incidents of violence marred the climate
for negotiations, while underlining their urgency. The
dispute here and related differences between our two NATO
allies, Turkey and Greece, affect European stability and our
vital interests. Accordingly, we are prepared in this new
year to play a heightened role in promoting a resolution in
Cyprus, but for any initiative to bear fruit, the parties
must agree to steps that will reduce tensions and make direct
negotiations possible.
In Northern Ireland, we are encouraged that multi-party
talks began but we are disappointed by the lack of progress
made, and strongly condemn the IRA's return to violence. We
will continue to work with the Irish and British governments
and the parties to help promote substantive progress in the
talks. And we note that former Senator George Mitchell, who
is chairing the multi-party talks, has been crucial to the
forward steps that have been taken.
As we enter the 50th anniversary year of independence for
both India and Pakistan, we will again consider the prospects
for reducing the tensions that have long existed between
these two friends of the United States.
We have a wealth of equities in this region, and a
particular concern about the regional arms race and nuclear
nonproliferation. India and Pakistan should both know that we
will do what we can to strengthen their relations with us and
encourage better relations between them, and that we expect
both to avoid actions calculated to provoke the other.
Another dispute tangled by history and geography concerns
Armenia, Azerbaijan and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The
good news here is that the ceasefire has now held for more
than two years. The bad news is that progress under the
OSCE's Minsk process has been agonizingly slow. We have very
substantial economic, political and humanitarian interests in
this region, and are prepared to play a more visible role in
helping to arrange a settlement. One step that Congress could
take to increase our influence would be to lift restrictions
on nonmilitary assistance to Azerbaijan, while maintaining
support for our generous aid program in Armenia.
Finally, in Central Africa, we are striving with regional
leaders and our allies to prevent a still-volatile situation
from erupting into even greater tragedy. We are encouraging
the repatriation of the remaining Rwandan refugees and
assisting in their re-integration into Rwandan society.
Through the efforts of Special Envoy Howard Wolpe, we are
promoting a dialogue between the opposing parties in Burundi.
And we support and end to conflict in Zaire based on
recognition of Zaire's territorial integrity and full respect
for human rights.
Mr. Chairman, I visited Central Africa last year. In
Rwanda, in the beautiful region where they filmed ``Gorillas
in the Mist'', there is an old stone church. By its side,
American and other volunteers work with little brushes to
clean and reassemble the skeletons of people slaughtered
there in 1994. Among the hundreds of skeletons there, I
happened to notice one in particular that was only two feet
long, about the size of my little grandson.
It is said that foreign policy should not be influenced by
emotion. That is true. But let us remember that murdered
children are not emotions; they are human beings whose
potential contributions are forever lost. America has an
interest, as do all civilized people, to act where possible
to prevent and oppose genocide.
One practical step we can take is to increase the capacity
of African countries to engage successfully in peacekeeping
efforts within their region. That is the purpose of the
African Crisis Response Force proposed by the Administration
last fall. This proposal has generated considerable interest
both within and outside the region. With Congressional
support, it will be a priority in the coming year.
leadership for a global economy
The Clinton Administration has had extraordinary success
these past four years in creating jobs for Americans at home
by opening markets abroad. The more than 200 trade agreements
negotiated have helped our exports grow by 34% since 1993 and
created 1.6 million new jobs. By passing NAFTA, concluding
the GATT Uruguay Round and forging the Miami summit
commitment to achieve free and open trade in our hemisphere
by 2005 and the APEC commitment to do the same in the Asia-
Pacific by 2020, the President has positioned the United
States to become an even more dynamic hub of the global
economy in the 21st century.
As Secretary of State, I would do all I can to see that
this momentum continues. Already, I have talked with Treasury
Secretary Rubin, Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Daley and
Trade Representative-designate Charlene Barshefsky. We
intend, if confirmed, to function as a team--America's team.
And we intend to be a very tough team.
Competition for the world's markets is fierce. Often, our
firms go head-to-head with foreign competitors who are
receiving active support from their own governments. A
principal responsibility of the Department of State is to see
that the interests of American companies and workers receive
fair treatment, and that inequitable barriers to competition
are overcome. Accordingly, the doors to the Department of
State and our embassies around the world are open--and will
remain open--to U.S. businesspeople seeking to share their
ideas and to ask our help.
In the years ahead, we must continue shaping a global
economic system that works for America. Because our people
are so productive and inventive, we will thrive in any true
competition. However, maintaining the equity of the system
requires constant effort. Experience tells us that there will
always be some who will seek to take advantage by denying
access to our products, pirating our copyrighted goods or
under-pricing us through sweatshop labor.
That is why our diplomacy will continue to emphasize high
standards on working conditions, the environment and labor
and business practices. And it is why we will work for a
trading system that establishes and enforces fair rules.
Although we will continue to work closely with our G-7
partners, the benefits of economic integration and expanded
trade are not--and should not be--limited to the most
developed nations. Especially now, when our bilateral foreign
assistance program is in decline, public and private sector
economic initiatives are everywhere an important part of our
foreign policy. We can also leverage resources for results by
working with and supporting the international financial
institutions.
In Latin America, a region of democracies, we will be
building on the 1994 Summit of the Americas to strengthen
judicial and other political institutions and to promote
higher standards of living through free trade and economic
integration. I am pleased that, in this effort, we will have
the assistance of the newly-designated special envoy for the
Americas, Mack Mclarty.
Although much poverty remains, substantial gains have been
made in many parts of the hemisphere through economic
reforms, increased commerce, lower inflation and higher
foreign investment. We believe that further progress can be
achieved that will benefit us, as well as our hemispheric
partners, through agreement on a Free Trade Area for the
Americas by the year 2005. We also place a high priority on
the early addition of Chile to the North American Free Trade
Agreement on equitable terms, and on the extension to Central
America and the Caribbean of Arrangements equivalent to
NAFTA.
Even closer to home, we are encouraging continued economic
and political reform in Mexico, with whom we share a 2000
mile border and a host of common concerns, including crime,
narcotics, immigration and the environment.
In Africa, the overall economic outlook is improving, but
daunting problems of debt, strife, environmental stress and
inadequate investment remain.
It is in our interest to help the region's leaders overcome
these problems and to build an Africa that is more
prosperous, democratic and stable.
We know, however, that the primary impetus for development
here, as elsewhere, must come from the private sector.
It is encouraging, therefore, that many African governments
are facilitating growth through policies that allow private
enterprise to take hold, while investing public resources
wisely in education, health and measures that expand
opportunities for women.
If confirmed, I will place great emphasis on working with
Africa's democratic leaders to broaden and deepen these
trends. More specifically, we will work towards the
integration of Africa into the world's economy, participate
in efforts to ease debt burdens, and help deserving
countries, where we can, through targeted programs of
bilateral aid.
promoting freedom and extending the rule of law
Mr. Chairman, the representative of a foreign power said
once that his country had no permanent allies, only permanent
interests.
It might be said of America that we have no permanent
enemies, only permanent principles.
Those principles are founded in respect for law, human
dignity and freedom not just for some, but for all people.
If I am confirmed, I can assure you that the United States
will not hesitate to address frankly the violation of
internationally-recognized human rights, whether those
violations occur in Cuba or Afghanistan; Burma, Belgrade or
Beijing.
We will work with others to defeat the forces of
international crime and to put those who traffic in drugs
permanently out of business.
We will pursue a hard line against international terror,
insisting on the principle that sponsoring, sheltering or
subsidizing terrorists cannot be rationalized; it is wrong;
and those guilty should not be appeased, but isolated and
punished.
We will maintain our strong backing for the international
war crimes tribunal for Rwanda and the Balkans, because we
believe that the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing should be
held accountable, and those who consider rape just another
tactic of war should answer for their crimes.
And we will continue to promote and advocate democracy
because we know that democracy is a parent to peace, and that
the American constitution remains the most
[[Page S598]]
revolutionary and inspiring source of change in the world.
the environmental mainstream
One final note, Mr. Chairman. Before closing I wanted to
make it clear that I intend, if confirmed, to build upon
Secretary Christopher's wise decision to incorporate
environmental goals into the mainstream of our foreign
policy.
Over the past several years, I have traveled to almost
every region of the world. I have seen the congestion caused
by over-development, and the deforestation that results when
expanding populations compete for shrinking natural
resources. I have smelled the air of smoke-clogged cities
where the environmental techniques made possible by modern
technology have not yet been applied.
The threats we face from environmental damage are not as
spectacular as those of a terrorist's bomb or a hostile
missile. But they directly affect the health, safety and
quality of life of families everywhere. We can choose to be
passive in responding to those threats, and leave the hard
work to our children, or we can be active and forward-looking
now. I choose the latter course, and will not be shy in
seeking congressional and public support.
conclusion
Members of the Committee, I am deeply honored to appear
here today. I have laid out some, but by no means all, of
what I see as the principal challenges and opportunities we
will face over the next four years. Clearly, we have a lot to
do.
I could say to you that it had always been my ambition to
be Secretary of State of the United States. But that is not
true. Frankly, I did not think it was possible.
I arrived in America when I was 11 years old. My family
came here to escape Communism and to find freedom and we did.
My ambition at that time was only to speak English well,
please my parents, study hard, and grow up to be an American.
The newspaper in Denver, where we lived, had a motto that
read, `` `Tis a privilege to live in Colorado.''
My father used to repeat that motto on a regular basis, but
he would often add a reminder: ``Kids,'' he would say,
``never forget that it is also a privilege to live in the
United States.''
Long after I left home, my mother would call on the Fourth
of July to ask my children, her grandchildren: ``Tell me, are
you singing any patriotic songs?''
Senators, you on your side of the table and I on my side,
have a unique opportunity to be partners in creating a new
and enduring framework for American Leadership. One of my
predecessors, Dean Acheson, wrote about being present at the
creation of a new era. You and I have the challenge and the
responsibility to help co-author the newest chapter in our
history.
In so doing, let us remember that there is not a page of
American history of which we are proud that was written by a
chronic complainer or prophet of despair.
We are doers.
By rejecting the temptations of isolation, and by standing
with those around the world who share our values, we will
advance our own interests; honor our best traditions; and
help to answer a prayer that has been offered over many years
in a multitude of tongues, in accordance with diverse
customs, in response to a common yearning.
That prayer is the prayer for peace, freedom, food on the
table and what President Clinton once so eloquently referred
to as ``the quiet miracle of a normal life.''
If with your consent, I am confirmed as Secretary of State,
I will ask you to join me in doing all we can, as
representatives of the indispensable nation, and with the
help of God, to answer that prayer.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, Ambassador Albright possesses a rare talent for
articulating the reasons why events in seemingly far away places matter
a great deal to ordinary Americans.
I was with another member of this administration, Sandy Berger, today
and we were talking about it. I said that I had to leave to go and deal
with Madeleine Albright's nomination on the floor. And I said, ``They
seem to like her.'' I don't think this is inappropriate to suggest.
There is no State secret. He said, ``We were at a meeting, and she used
the line that I think is great, and it captures what is going on. She
said, `It is amazing that the 1 percent of the resources of this
Government may very well' ''--that is approximately what we spend on
the whole foreign policy establishment of this Government--`` `\1\
percent of the resources of this Government will probably determine 50
percent of the future of this Nation over the next 6 to 8 years.' ''
The reason I bother to mention that as an aside is that one of the
things she grasped very well, as all great Secretaries of State have,
is in the context in which she is operating, and the context in which
the foreign policy it will be her responsibility to promote will be
hers.
Ambassador Albright has made a convincing argument for the United
States to remain engaged throughout the world and for this Congress to
give the State Department the resources it needs to, as she said,
``promote and protect the interests of the American people.''
I look forward to working with Ambassador Albright to secure an
adequate level of funding for her to direct American diplomacy, in
order that our Foreign Service officers, our U.S. Information Service
officers, and our Agency for International Development workers can be
active throughout the world. We need a diplomatic corps that can react
quickly and decisively to crises before they escalate and then threaten
peace and stability. We cannot afford to keep the State Department so
underfunded that diplomats are reduced to making calls from pay phones
because our missions are so poorly equipped that even the telephones
don't work.
Mr. President, there is much more to say and much that has been said.
I do not want to be the one to slow up the process. Let me conclude by
suggesting that I particularly look forward to working with Ambassador
Albright in a number of specific areas--the ratification of the
Chemical Weapons Convention before it enters into force April 29, and
to negotiate further arms control treaties, including a Start III
accord.
I also look forward to developing a policy in Bosnia that allows us
to withdraw our forces by mid-1998 without allowing a relapse into
renewed fighting among the various parties there.
I also am looking forward to encouraging democracy throughout the
world in places like Serbia, Belarus, Iraq, China, Burma, and Cuba, all
of which are going to be daunting tasks we face. And to be sure, before
NATO decides to admit new members--I hope that we will--that the
enlargement will increase the security of all the countries in Europe,
and, second, that the costs of enlargement are fairly allocated in a
manner not unduly burdensome on the American taxpayer. And third, that
a NATO charter with Russia can be concluded that allows the alliance
the opportunity to consult with Moscow before making final decisions,
in order to accommodate enhanced security in Europe. And also to
increase our efforts at combating the scourge of international drug
trafficking, which threatens so many of our neighborhoods and families.
The one thing that every Secretary of State has given lip service to
is dealing with that issue. The one thing that every Secretary of
State, Democrat or Republican, has promptly forgotten is a commitment I
have gotten before from every Secretary that they will not forget. But
I want the Record to note, if Madeleine Albright is listening, that I
remind her I will not forget her commitment that the State Department
should be involved in that testy, little, difficult item of dealing
with the international drug problem. The truth of the matter is most
folks at the State Department and foreign policy types think it is kind
of beneath them to deal with drug policy, and I am here to tell them,
now that I rank on the Democratic side, I will be a thorn in their side
about increasing their attention to that issue.
Mr. President, I am enthusiastic about the prospect of working with
Ambassador Albright over the next 4 years. I am confident that she will
cooperate closely with the Senate to ensure that our foreign policy
continues to embody American ideals and to serve the interests of the
United States around the globe.
I strongly urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Madeleine
Albright as our next Secretary of State.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Chair advise me of the time situation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 44 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Delaware has 28 minutes remaining.
Mr. GREGG. It would be my proposal then to yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Montana and then speak myself 5 minutes to try to get the
time more in
[[Page S599]]
line. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
I rise today in support of the nomination of Madeleine Albright, our
Ambassador to the United Nations, to be Secretary of State.
As we all know, the Ambassador is a highly intelligent woman with a
solid history in foreign affairs. We have just completed visits to
countries where we have a very high investment in military, and let me
tell my colleagues in the Senate that we still live in a pretty tough
world. Our challenges are still there.
Not only does she bring to her position experience from academia but
also the administrative arm of our Government and the legislative side.
So I am certain that she knows how this process works. Based on that
knowledge, I think she knows how to work with this Congress and forms a
solid foundation of trust and openness that is required of all of us.
Considering Secretary Christopher's introduction at the Foreign
Relations Committee hearing and Ambassador Albright's testimony in
which she stated, ``I can assure you that I am going to tell it like it
is here and also when I go abroad,'' I am hopeful that her relationship
with the Congress will be an open one and an honest one.
By her frankness, however, there are issues which concern those of us
who live in the State of Montana. We may disagree with the Ambassador
in some areas. Although she has promised that ``one of the major goals
of this administration is to make sure that the American economic
lifeline is protected,'' the Ambassador has also stated she is
supportive of the fast track provision to include Chile into the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Treaties like NAFTA have not exactly
been a windfall for my State of Montana. And the mere suggestion of
expanding it does not sit well when you have been impacted like we
have, being a border State.
As legislators and leaders, we must ensure that free and fair trade
is part of any treaty, and if it is not, then those treaties or
agreements should not even be considered. I hope the Ambassador will
remember this vital element when negotiating as a U.S. representative
around the world.
Also, in the past, I have had great concerns about what I have
perceived as her overly enthusiastic willingness to use American troops
abroad just from some of the statements she has made.
I see she did in her testimony give a statement that would raise our
comfort level a little more, and I think that statement is good enough
for me. I have always believed that the United States should never
forget that sending our troops into dangerous situations should only be
done when our national security is in jeopardy. Ambassador Albright
seems to understand the gravity of this concept, and I am now assured
that she will not take such action when policies face that kind of
situation.
Based on that, and I know we are squeezed for time and there are many
statements to be made about this wonderful lady, I hope that my
colleagues will support her to be confirmed in this nomination.
I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I yield the remainder of my
time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized on the nomination in
the time under the control of the minority for 4 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. I rise in very strong and enthusiastic support of the
nomination of Madeleine K. Albright to be Secretary of State.
In my judgment, Ambassador Albright is an outstanding choice for this
position. Her experience, both personal and professional, as well as
her demonstrated leadership ability, her steadfast adherence to the
values and principles that Americans hold dear, and her vast and
indisputable knowledge of the many complex issues that will no doubt
confront our next Secretary of State, make it clear why President
Clinton has selected her.
Ambassador Albright's work with the administration over the past 4
years testifies to her ability to excel at two very different aspects
of the position for which she has been nominated. She has worked within
the administration to craft effective responses to the international
challenges we face--obviously a prime responsibility of the Secretary
of State. She also during these last 4 years has articulated those
policies in a clear and persuasive manner, building support among the
American people and winning the cooperation and respect of the
international community. Her capability in both the private and public
arenas of policymaking is most impressive.
It is abundantly clear to those familiar with her record that she
represents a very tough-minded and perceptive choice on the part of the
President. She has distinguished herself in many institutions and
aspects of foreign policymaking, from the executive and legislative
branches to the world of academia. Over the past two decades, she has
served as a staff member both at the National Security Council and in
the Senate, where she worked with our former colleague, Ed Muskie, who
himself then later became Secretary of State. As a scholar, she has
earned respect in the academic community as a researcher and teacher,
consistently drawing high praise from her students--further testimony
to her ability both to come up with solutions to complex issues as well
as to explain them to the community at large.
As president of the Center for National Policy, a nonprofit research
organization formed by representatives from government, industry, and
labor, she not only gained an understanding of the nonprofit sector but
worked to bring together these diverse groups in the interest of
domestic and international policy.
For the past 4 years she has served in the President's Cabinet as
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, where she has addressed
issues ranging from economic development to peacekeeping to
counternarcotics, and has dealt with conflicts that span the globe.
Under her leadership the United States gained Security Council
approval for the United States-led, multinational effort to restore
democracy in Haiti, for resolutions condemning human rights violations
in countries including Cuba, Sudan, Burma, Nigeria, Iran, and Iraq, and
for the establishment of an inspector general to crack down on waste
and fraud within the U.N. system. That she accomplished these and many
other important goals at a time when the United States was the world's
largest debtor to the United Nations, thereby undercutting our
influence in that institution, bears witness to her formidable
diplomatic skills.
What Ambassador Albright will bring to this position, however,
reaches far beyond the qualifications that are listed on her impressive
resume. Her own personal family history of escaping from persecution,
first at the hands of the Nazis and subsequently at those of the
Communists, has given her a profound understanding of the values and
interests at the very heart of U.S. foreign policy. At her hearing, she
eloquently reminded us that freedom and democracy can be challenged
from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. She told
the committee, ``It might be said of America that we have no permanent
enemies, only permanent principles. Those principles are founded in
respect for law, human dignity and freedom, not just for some, but for
all people.''
Referring to the United States as ``the indispensable nation,'' she
challenged us to become ``the authors of the history of our age'' by
seizing the opportunity to meet the demands of a new century.
I think we all agree on the importance of having the President's new
foreign policy team in place as quickly as possible, and I am pleased
that the Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate are acting
upon this nomination in such an expeditious manner. I understand the
Armed Services Committee is also moving expeditiously to consider the
nomination of our former colleague, Senator William Cohen, to be
Secretary of Defense. We have before us a full and pressing agenda: the
ratification of the Chemical Weapons
[[Page S600]]
Convention and budgeting adequate resources for the effective conduct
of our foreign policy, to mention only two. Ambassador Albright's
confirmation hearing proved to all of us President Clinton's insight in
selecting her for this significant and weighty assignment. He chose her
for her demonstrated competence, her broad range of experience, for her
consistently sound advice, and her exceptional ability to explain
international issues to Americans while conveying U.S. policies and
principles to the world.
I believe that Madeleine Albright is eminently qualified to become
Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to join with me in approving
her nomination.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of
Ambassador Albright's nomination as Secretary of State. I am confident
she will serve our national security interests with distinction.
While she has managed a broad portfolio in her capacity as our
Ambassador to the United Nations, there are two issues where I have had
occasion to work closely with her and have been particularly impressed
with her views and commitment.
On Burma, Ambassador Albright has consistently delivered a tough
message to the ruling junta: We expect improvements on human rights, we
expect a serious effort to be made to combat the scourge of narcotics
trafficking.
She has recognized that the key to progress in both areas is to
restore democracy to Burma.
To the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi and her legitimately elected
Government of Burma, robbed of their victory in 1991, Albright has been
the sole voice of support and hope in this administration.
Following the International Conference on Women in Beijing, she
traveled to Rangoon and met with Aung San Suu Kyi.
This may not seem to be exceptional, but Ambassador Albright is the
only senior official in the administration to meet with Aung San Suu
Kyi and has been alone yet unfailing in her outspoken support for the
advancement of Burma's freedom from the thugs who currently rule.
A few weeks ago, after several hundred students and citizens were
arrested for calling for political change, Ambassador Albright spoke
out forcefully and in clear terms at the United Nations that this
oppression must come to an end.
Last year, during consideration of the foreign operations bill, we
included language which established criteria for imposing economic
sanctions against SLORC.
Specifically, we required sanctions be applied if there was large
scale repression against the opposition or if any action was taken to
harm or rearrest Aung San Suu Kyi.
Since the bill passed, the administration continues to be in a
holding pattern claiming our policy is under review, a review which has
been going on for several years.
In the meantime, more than 500 people have been arrested when Aung
San Suu Kyi ventured from her compound several weeks ago, her car was
stoned and smashed by thugs as SLORC police looked on. Since then she
has been under undeclared house arrest.
Given her past support I am hopeful Ambassador Albright will finally
take the necessary steps to position this administration squarely in
support of democracy and its most eloquent, dignified advocate Aung San
Suu Kyi.
Let me comment briefly on one other area where I believe Ambassador
Albright has already made a difference.
During the administration's recent consideration of the level of
support for the foreign affairs account she has been unflinching and
unapologetic about the need to provide adequate resources to administer
American foreign policy and assistance programs.
I share her view that we have reached a crisis point--we cannot
afford to compromise our financial support for our embassies and
programs abroad based on a misguided notion that further reductions
will actually make a difference in balancing the budget.
The 150 account is already less than 1 percent of Federal spending--
further cuts will not make any meaningful contribution to controlling
our budget deficit and, in fact may actually make it worse.
Cutting back on America's presence overseas has a direct impact on
American commercial interests--without export promotion programs to
launch and support them in critical but risky new markets, American
business men will lose long term access and share--and as we all know,
exports are the key to both American income and 11 million jobs.
It's not just our economy that is affected, our presence abroad has a
direct affect on protecting our interests in combating terrorism and
narcotics trafficking, direct threats to our communities and families.
American leadership has paid a premium in peace and prosperity but it
comes at a price. Madeleine Albright has courageously and clearly
defended the importance of making that down payment.
I am confident that she will bring the same frank, smart, and tough
approach to her new responsibilities that we have seen her exercise in
her current position.
I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Albright's statement at the
United Nations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright, United States
Representative to the United Nations, in the General Assembly, on the
Human Rights Situation in Burma, December 12, 1996
The United States strongly supports this resolution on the
human rights situation in Burma, and I congratulate my
colleagues from Sweden for the skill and commitment with
which they authored and gained agreement to it.
This resolution reflects the consensus view of the members
of the United Nations, a view premised on the ideals of the
UN Charter and the principles enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It reflects the hard-earned
wisdom of the international community that every government
of every society should be held to certain minimum standards
of respect for the rights and freedoms of its own people.
Regrettably, the current government of Burma is not meeting
these minimum standards. It has subjected democratic forces
to a kind of rolling repression in which small steps forward
alternate with crackdowns and episodes of intimidation and
violence.
The Burmese authorities, known as the SLORC, have refused
to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the leader of the
National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, or with
other democratic leaders and representatives of the major
ethnic groups. They have continued to deny to their citizens
the fundamental political freedoms of expression and
assembly. And they have engaged in torture, forced labor,
forced relocations and summary executions.
It is increasingly clear that the failure of Burmese
authorities to respect civil and human rights is causing
unrest within the country.
Recent student demonstrations, although non-political in
nature, have been harshly repressed. The Government has
periodically curtailed the right of Aung San Suu Kyi to
address her supporters in public and even to leave her home.
Last November, her motorcade was attacked by a mob that could
only have acted with official authority and blessing. As we
speak, the restrictions on her movements and activities are
the most severe since her release from ``house arrest'' in
July, 1995.
Although the SLORC professes a desire to move Burma in the
direction of democracy, it has not done so. The
Constitutional Convention it established to create the
illusion of a national political dialogue is a sham--fully
controlled and orchestrated by the government. As a result,
the Convention has been a source not of reconciliation, but
of further division.
Finally, the Government of Burma has refused to cooperate
with the UN Special Rapporteur and with the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General.
The Burmese authorities would like the world to believe
that its harsh policies are necessary in light of Burma's
turbulent history and the multi-ethnic nature of Burmese
society. But as the Resolution approved today shows, the
world does not accept that excuse. The right of people to
participate freely in a democratic political process is an
ally--not an enemy--to national unity and social peace.
Experience tells us that the kind of stability that may be
achieved through repression is sterile, superficial and
temporary. It is a stability maintained by fear, in which the
human resources of a society are held back and beaten down.
Lasting stability, economic prosperity and a rich cultural
life come when people are free to make use of their full
talents and abilities. A society blossoms when those who
govern respect those who are governed, and when the people
have confidence in those they have chosen to make and enforce
their laws.
For Burma, the path to that kind of future is outlined in
this resolution.
In it, we call upon the government to cease abusing human
rights, to empty their cells
[[Page S601]]
of those detained for political reasons, to permit UN
representatives to visit; and to begin a genuine dialogue
with democratic and ethnic leaders.
The more time elapses before these steps are taken, the
more the pressure will build, the more divided Burma will
become, and the more difficult it will be for Burma to
achieve a peaceful transition to democratic rule.
The international community would like to see Burma develop
into a stable, prosperous and democratic society. We would
like to remove Burma from the list of nations about which we
annually express concern.
But as long as repression remains the government's chosen
means of conducting business with its own people, we will
continue to meet our own responsibility to speak up; and to
assert the validity in Burma of the universal and cherished
principles by which all nations have agreed to live, and
without which, no nation can fulfill its potential.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to speak, along with my colleagues, on the good counsel, good
decision the President has made in choosing Madeleine Albright. I think
it also is appropriate at this time to acknowledge the extraordinary
effort and the extraordinary commitment of service that was made by
Secretary Christopher during his term as Secretary of State. He was a
patient and tireless pursuer of peace around the world. I may not have
agreed with all his policies, but certainly in a number of areas his
successes are considerable and I point specifically to the Mideast.
Equally important, he was an individual totally committed to raising
up the standard of living and of support for members of his team, his
Foreign Service team and their families, something I am also committed
to, that, as chairman of the appropriations committee which has
jurisdiction over the State Department, I feel very strongly we must
continue to pursue. So I congratulate him on his efforts.
Ambassador Albright is someone I have had a chance to work with,
relative to her time at the United Nations. I know she will bring to
the office of Secretary of State a great deal of integrity and a great
deal of energy. Of course she has a unique personal background that I
think will be a tremendous asset to the President, as he and she
develop international policy.
But, as we address the issue of Madeleine Albright's nomination I
think we need to go beyond the person. I intend to vote for her and
vote with enthusiasm for her, but I do believe very strongly that we
need to raise the issue of policy, as to how this administration is
pursuing the decisions of foreign policy in a number of arenas because
there are some problems and I have significant reservations, as I know
many of my colleagues do. I know there has been some discussion on the
issue of Bosnia, and the question as to how the administration acted
and is going to continue to act there, the fact that basically neither
the Congress nor the American people were told fully of the policies
there, and in fact were really misled as to the decisions that were
made there, as to the removal of American troops. But rather than
focusing on that issue, that I know some of my colleagues were talking
about, I want to focus on two other issues I think are critical and
about which this administration's policies need to be reviewed with
considerable intensity.
The first issue is how we deal with the United Nations. It is my
understanding the administration will be sending up a supplemental
request or some other form of request for an appropriation to fully
fund the arrearages that are due to the United Nations. I happen to be
a supporter of the United Nations, its goals and purposes. But I also
am realistic enough to know that body has not functioned very
effectively and that body has spent a lot of money ineffectively and
has had a significant track record of patronage, of misuse of funds,
and in some instances of actual abusive use of funds.
The question becomes how should we pay these arrearages? Should we
just do it in a carte blanche manner or just do it in an orderly manner
that allows the United States to assert financial interests of the
integrity within the institution, of its management of day-to-day
operation, and of its delivery of services? To date we have not had a
great deal of success in that area. There has been a lot of talk about
it. The United Nations has claimed that it is now funding a no-growth
budget, something which is very suspect even though the State
Department has certified it. It is very suspect because there are $154
million worth of reductions in spending which they claim they are going
to make, but which have not been identified. Yet we see the State
Department accepting them at face value, which is something I think
this Congress should have a great deal of problems doing for any
American agency.
In addition, we hear the United Nations is aggressively pursuing
reform within itself. But that reform does not seem to be broad. It
also does not seem to be willing to be subject to significant review.
An inspector general has been appointed, but that inspector general's
portfolio has been significantly limited.
We, as a Congress, have also been significantly circumscribed in our
ability to determine how the dollars are being spent.
Why is it important that we look at this? Well, because 25 cents of
every dollar that the United Nations spends comes from the American
taxpayer, and we have to go back to our constituents and say those
dollars are being spent effectively.
I personally have no problem funding the United Nations at a level
that is reasonable, but I do have a great deal of problem funding some
group of individuals simply sitting at a desk who got those jobs out of
patronage or because they happened to know somebody or related to
somebody and are not pursuing and accomplishing a great deal, either to
the benefit of the United Nations or the world. Yet, there appears to
be a significant amount of that going on.
I had one U.N. spokesperson say to me, ``But we have 290 countries
looking over our shoulders making sure every cent is spent
appropriately.'' The fact is, just a few nations are actually paying
for the spending. Most of the nations that participate in the United
Nations either contribute very little or, in some cases, nothing to
general coffers, and they are not looking over their shoulders to
determine how the money is being spent effectively. In many instances,
they are looking over the shoulders to see how much money they can get
spent on them.
So, really, it is the United States role in the exercise of reviewing
the United Nations that we be much more aggressive in financial review
and management of that institution.
This is something I do not think this administration has pursued
aggressively enough. Ambassador Albright, to her credit, tried to
pursue it aggressively, but I think that once we take off the lever of
the arrearages issue and simply sign a blank check for arrearages, we
lose our capacity to effectively pursue United Nations reform in its
own house, and that is something that I will be very resistant to
doing.
I believe Congress should put a strong fence around any funds for the
United Nations, and before those moneys can be spent for arrearages,
there must be a hard account--a hard account--of how the reforms have
occurred and whether or not they are going to be effective.
Second, this administration's actions in the area of terrorism, which
is a core issue of foreign policy--in fact, there is no greater threat
to this country today than the act of a terrorist, either orchestrated
by a foreign power or orchestrated by an international group of
individuals directed at our country--there is no greater threat to our
country today.
We came out of the cold war where the threat was two nations
confronting each other with nuclear armament into a world where we have
innumerable factions around the world who, for whatever reasons--
whether they are religious, whether they are personal, whether they are
just economic--have decided to make the United States the target of
their concerns and, in many instances, these are fanatics.
We, as a nation, must be much more aggressive in addressing the issue
of terrorism. To do this, we have to have a coordinated effort that
starts with the President and involves the core agencies at the Federal
level, including the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department
and the Justice Department, and especially the FBI in the Justice
Department.
I have been concerned and have spoken on this floor a number of
instances
[[Page S602]]
about the fact that although we have leadership in those Departments
who have raised the issue of terrorism to a high standard within their
Departments, and although those leaders talk to each other--Secretary
Christopher was aggressive in talking to other agency heads, the
Defense Department, CIA, and Justice--we do not yet have in place a
systematic process for pushing down through the agencies the
cooperation which is necessary in order to have a coordinated effort.
In fact, we still have in the field significant resistance from the
State Department to FBI agents being placed overseas for the basic
purpose of law enforcement, and we have a real lack of communication,
in many instances, between the FBI, CIA, and the field people who do
the work for the State Department.
Until we put in place a systematic process of developing information
and getting it back to a central group in this country who can use that
information effectively, we will be continuing to blind ourselves as a
nation as to the threat of terrorism and our ability to respond to it.
This has to come from the top. It has to come from the President. The
President has to have the leadership of the agencies sit with him on a
regular basis and develop a plan which is then communicated down
through the various levels of the different Departments. But it has not
occurred yet. To be honest, I do not think there is a sense of urgency
expressed yet within this administration to do that. So, once again, I
have a strong concern and hope that they will take this issue on.
So those are two public policy issues which I think this
administration has yet to adequately address, and I hope the
new Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright, will pursue them. They are
put on the table by myself as a matter of a caveat item of concern
that, as chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over the
State Department and the Justice Department, I intend to continue to
push and to which I hope this administration will respond.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination
of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. I thank the majority
leader for moving so rapidly to schedule both this debate as well as
the vote.
I believe the overwhelming vote--probably unanimous--in favor of
Madeleine Albright is going to properly reflect the confidence and
esteem in which she is held by the U.S. Senate.
I think the President should be greatly commended for this
nomination. Obviously, he has chosen not only someone who is eminently
qualified to be Secretary of State, but he has made a wonderful
statement to the world about the possibilities in the United States of
America. It is something we often talk about, but Madeleine Albright
will be a living example, an Ambassador, even as Secretary of State, of
the opportunities in this country for an immigrant as well as for
women. I think all of us should be very proud of that.
She brings a remarkable amount of knowledge and practical experience
to this job. She is an academic with recognized expertise in the
politics and policies of Russia, Central and Eastern Europe.
During her tenure as our representative at the United Nations, she
has shown herself to be a remarkably forceful and effective diplomat.
Of particular importance to us here, she understands the Hill, she
understands the Congress, she understands the constitutional
prerogatives thereof, and she has worked as well with the executive
branch as she has with the legislative branch of our Government.
During her 4 years at the United Nations, she established an
impressive record of accomplishments on behalf of our country. Thanks
to her determination, the United States was able to hold the line on
U.N. sanctions against Libya and Iraq and to gain the Security
Council's approval for the United States-led multinational effort to
restore democracy in Haiti, an effort, I might comment, met with
significant resistance in this country, that represented both a gutsy,
courageous decision and one which has made an enormous difference,
ultimately, for the people of Haiti and, I think, also, one might say,
to our country because of what we accomplished and also because of the
practical things that we avoided with respect to the forced immigration
and difficulties we were facing with refugees coming to Florida.
In addition to that, her very strong personal advocacy led to the
establishment of the War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda and the former
Yugoslavia and for the fulfillment, really, of Eleanor Roosevelt's
proposal for the establishment of a new position, the High Commissioner
for Human Rights.
In the very difficult area of U.N. reform and management, which is an
area Senator Gregg referred to, and other Senators have expressed a
great deal of concern about, particularly those of us on the Foreign
Relations Committee, Ambassador Albright's determined and personal
efforts have led to the establishment of an inspector general, the
adoption for the first time in history of a no-growth budget. As
suspect as Senator Gregg says some of the promises may be, it is in
place and I believe we are in a position to help leverage that now for
the first time, and also, most important, the election of a new
Secretary General who understands the paramount need for continued
reform.
Those of us who know Ambassador Albright were not at all surprised by
her deft handling of the nomination process itself, the way in which
she impressed both the public and the Senators who were part of that
confirmation process earlier this month.
As the former chairman and now ranking member of the International
Operations Subcommittee, I was particularly pleased that Ambassador
Albright shares my concern about two important issues. They are not the
only things we share, but two that I want to just spend a moment on.
One is the need to ensure that the State Department has adequate
resources to conduct our diplomacy in this increasingly complex world.
I think it is vital for us in the Congress not to balance the budget of
the United States on the great international interests we have, to
nickel and dime many of those vital interests as we go forward in this
far more complex world.
Many of my colleagues spend a lot of time extolling the virtues of
the end of the cold war, and well we should. But the end of the cold
war does not mean the end of the need for personal diplomacy or for
vigilance or for American presence. I would respectfully submit that it
means the need for more, not less. And the new kind of conflicts that
we see, conflicts that emerge out of nationalism, out of
fundamentalism, the problems of terrorism and working on treaties and
various agreements, and legal agreements to exchange law enforcement
and information, all of these things really demand more personal
diplomacy than ever before.
Indeed, the extraordinary confrontations we face internationally on
issues of resource allocation, refugees, human rights require the
United States of America, the preeminent leader on these issues in the
world, to be able to make our presence felt.
Mr. President, that means people talking to people. It does not mean
closing every mission or closing every outpost in the world. It frankly
means a greater presence, not a lesser presence. I believe that that
will return to us in so many hundreds of thousands of ways, some of
them immeasurable, but most of them measurable, that it is well worth
the investment of this country.
The second area, I believe, is the importance of developing a
multilateral strategy to combat the increasing threats positioned by
international crime. Without such a strategy, we will find ourselves
increasingly threatened in the face of a growing global criminal
network that tears at the fabric of our society and jeopardizes our
relationships with other nations.
In the coming months we have to address a host of important issues in
the Senate: arms control and foreign policy issues, including the
Chemical Weapons Convention, the Nuclear Safety Convention, the future
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the U.N. funding
[[Page S603]]
and reform, and the question of resources for international affairs,
agencies and programs. So I look forward to working with the new
Secretary of State on those issues.
Mr. President, many of us have had the honor of working with
Ambassador Albright for the last 4 years. We know she has a remarkable
grasp of the issues that we face and a determination to confront the
challenges. We should remember that she brings a very important
additional quality to this job--it is a special quality, and I think
particularly important in this time--and that is the ability to connect
with the American people and to help define to the American people the
complexities of our interests in foreign policy and to do so in a way
that all Americans can understand and appreciate.
When we visited in my office prior to her confirmation hearing,
Ambassador Albright said to me that her first objective was to make the
American people understand what we are trying to accomplish, how we are
trying to accomplish it, and their stake in what we are trying to
accomplish in their name. Like any smart politician, she understands
that no foreign policy can be successful ultimately without the support
of the American people. I am confident that she will engender that
support in her new role as Secretary of State.
So today we have an opportunity to help make history in the U.S.
Senate by confirming a remarkably talented person who happens to also
be a woman as the next Secretary of State. I am pleased to cast my vote
along with others for Madeleine Albright. I know she will undertake her
new job with great thoughtfulness and creativity and with a zest that
will make us proud.
I reserve the remainder of time for our side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator from North
Carolina for this opportunity to speak.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in the
discussion of the confirmation of the President's choice for Secretary
of State, Madeleine Albright.
Generally, Mr. President, I respect the Executive's prerogative to
choose Cabinet officers whom the President believes will faithfully and
diligently execute the Administration's policies. However, in our
federal system, the Senate plays an important role in the confirmation
process through the constitutionally granted power to ``advise and
consent.'' It is this duty--the duty to advise and to grant consent--
which brings me before you today, for I have grave concerns regarding
the conduct of U.S. foreign policy under the Clinton administration.
As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I had the privilege
and the responsibility to question Ambassador Albright concerning her
strategic vision for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Ambassador
Albright is a capable and forceful advocate of the Clinton
administration's agenda. I am confident that she will serve the
President with honor and distinction. Unfortunately, I am equally
confident that Ambassador Albright will continue to promote the same
misguided Clinton foreign policy that we have had for the past 4 years.
We need our foreign relations to be conducted at the highest level of
integration and coordination, and the highest level of representation
of the sovereign interests of this country and the American people. We
must ensure that our influence is used to advance the national interest
and to ensure respect for American leadership abroad. National prestige
is reinforced and enhanced when we operate with a coherent, concise,
and understandable foreign policy. As the world's only remaining
superpower--we must enhance our capacity to deliver military, economic,
and moral leadership with clarity.
To date, the Clinton administration has reacted to foreign policy
developments, but has failed to a develop a foreign policy. The
administration has lurched from managing one crisis to another, but
never articulated the national interest in accordance with a core
philosophy. Instead of consistently safeguarding and promoting our
values abroad, the Clinton administration has acted on an ad hoc basis
according to the exigencies of the moment, confusing our allies and
emboldening rogue nations. China was emboldened to conduct missile
tests off the coast of Taiwan; North Korea was emboldened to further
the development of their nuclear weapons capabilities; Saddam Hussein
was emboldened to strengthen his position in northern Iraq.
Mr. President, in her confirmation hearing Madeleine Albright said,
quoting the President of the United States, ``Where our interests are
clear, our values are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we
must act and we must lead.'' This formula for deploying American forces
is one which is so broad and so vague that it sends signals which might
confuse other players in the international arena.
``Where our interests are clear''--I suppose we could have an
interest anywhere--and ``where our values are at stake''--I am sure the
values we hold dear are at stake in every situation around the world--
and ``where we can make a difference.'' Well, the truth of the matter
is, no one would think that we would send our troops where we could not
make a difference.
I remain concerned that if we deploy troops in too many instances
just because there are interests and there are values at stake and we
can make a difference, there may come a time when our troops will be so
occupied that they will not be available to protect strategic national
interests where we must make a difference.
It is important that we ask the Secretary of State-designate and this
administration for a well-defined set of guidelines for how we deploy
the strength of the United States around the world. The absence of such
a policy, I think, could be disastrous in terms of our own interests
and could be confusing and send the wrong signals to the international
community. In that respect I send to the desk for inclusion in the
Record an editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 13, 1997,
regarding this matter and the hearing and ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statecraft--After Madeleine Albright Skates to Confirmation, It'll Be
Performance, Not Rhetoric, That Counts
During her confirmation hearings for secretary of state
last week, Madeleine Albright was asked when America should
intervene abroad.
She quoted a high-sounding but vague statement by President
Clinton: ``Where our interests are clear, our values are at
stake, and where we can make a difference, we must act and we
must lead.''
Sen. John Ascroft, a Missouri Republican, asked with
understandable perplexity, ``How do we set those priorities?
Are there ever times where we don't act where we could make a
difference because we need to reserve our capacity to act
where we must make a difference?''
Mrs. Albright, who served in Clinton's first term as
ambassador to the United Nations, replied that such choices
are policymakers' most difficult task. But that is precisely
the mountain she must move if the Clinton foreign policy is
to gain coherence. As Americans struggle to find the line
between isolationism and global gendarme, Mrs. Albright still
hasn't clarified where she stands.
Her confirmation hearing was a lovefest, in part because
she charmed conservatives by bashing Cuba and former United
Nations chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in part because she will
be the first woman to hold such high office. But she didn't
resolve the contradictions in her political and diplomatic
track record of interventionism.
As a child of refugees from Hitler and Soviet communism,
Mrs. Albright says her thinking was molded by Munich rather
than Vietnam (that is, she sees U.S. intervention as good,
not evil). But it has often seemed her litmus test for U.S.
intervention was more a hope of doing good, than a pursuit of
vital U.S. interests.
On taking her U.N. post, Mrs. Albright called for
``assertive multilateralism,'' meaning America should lead,
but work through international organizations like the United
Nations. But she dropped that idea after the U.N. and
American peacekeeping debacle in Somalia (for which she bears
much responsibility).
Now Mrs. Albright talks about a pragmatic ``doability
doctrine.'' She said America isn't the world's policeman. But
she never answered Sen. Ashcroft's question.
The lack of clues to an Albright doctrine wouldn't be so
worrisome had she demonstrated a firmer grip of strategy over
the past four years. Instead, she became known more as the
queen of the TV sound bite, coining punchy foreign policy
phrases to
[[Page S604]]
compensate for the taciturn Warren Christopher. Pundits
praise her ``passionate'' approach, but in her new job it
will be strategy and performance that count, not rhetoric.
Perhaps she can avoid her boss' history of confusing the two.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, during her confirmation hearing
Ambassador Albright stated that ``we are not the world's policeman,
nor, . . . are we running a charity or a fire department.'' However,
she failed to recognize that the combination of her so-called
``assertive multilateralism'' and a ``do-ability doctrine''--whereby
the United States acts ``in the places where our addition of action
will, in fact, be the critical difference''--places the United States,
as a practical matter in the position of being the world's policeman,
of running a charity or a fire department.
For the past 4 years, the pursuit of the United States' national
interests has been obscured by an overriding reliance on multilateral
action. The administration's embrace of `assertive multilateralism' has
resulted in both the abdication of our responsibilities and the
misguided projection of our power. For example, instead of applying the
Reagan Doctrine to Bosnia by equipping and training the Bosnian forces
in spite of our allies' objections, the Clinton administration
subcontracted our role of arming the Bosnians to a terrorist regime in
Iran, allowing fundamentalists to gain a foothold in the heart of
Europe and thus unnecessarily endangering the lives of U.S. troops. In
contrast, the administration's attempt at nation building in Somalia
sacrificed the lives of 19 brave Rangers without regard to whether such
action advanced our vital national interests. When this administration
acts according to the exigencies of the moment instead of according to
an underlying philosophy, the country lurches from paralysis to mission
creep without regard to the national interest.
Recently, there has been discussion of the possibility of reworking
our entire military force structure--which is presently based on the
capacity to fight two simultaneous major regional conflicts--in order
to enable us to commit U.S. troops to an ever-growing number of
multilateral peacekeeping missions. I am concerned that we may
sacrifice our vital national security interests in order to be able to
participate in peripheral endeavors. We should not be shortsighted. We
should not lose sight of what we must do in order to accomplish what we
can do. Our military should be used to protect our national security
interests, not provide peacekeeping in areas without strategic
significance.
We need to continue to very closely monitor the foreign policy of the
Clinton administration in terms of the national security interests of
the United States. We must be vigilant about the deployment of U.S.
troops around the world, including deployments that might include an
attempt to place U.S. troops under the command of individuals who are
not U.S. citizens and who do not have the kind of values to which we
are committed.
Mr. President, in this era of hegemonic stability, with the
proliferation of fissile materials and missile delivery systems to
rogue nations we must be constantly vigilant to security threats. We
must ensure that adherence to Russia's narrow and one-sided
interpretation of the ABM Treaty does not jeopardize the safety of the
American people. Russia should not have veto power over developing a
defensive system to protect the American people from missile attack.
Ambassador Albright supports the administration's goal to develop a
theater missile defense system that will protect our allies and our
troops abroad--but not to develop a system to protect our own territory
and citizens at home in the near term. I find this position to be
untenable.
Mr. President, we must not only protect the physical security of the
United States and the American people. We must also safeguard our
sovereignty--our State and local laws and customs from international
review. I am troubled by Ambassador Albright's assertion that ``there
is no such thing anymore as just a purely domestic issue or a purely
foreign issue.'' She says there are only ``intermestic'' issues,
meaning international and domestic issues combined. I think there are
some issues of sovereignty that need to be reserved directly and
appropriately, not only to the purview of our country, but to its
citizens--to individuals and to families. I am concerned about her
support of international treaties which could infringe upon the
parental and religious rights Americans now enjoy.
I am concerned that we closely monitor the extent to which the United
States from time to time by treaty cedes the sovereignty of the
American people to international organizations. Madeleine Albright, the
Secretary of State-designate, for instance, signed the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Britain, which has ratified the
treaty, is now being called on the carpet because they allow moderate
corporal punishment of children by parents. I simply do not think we
need to look to the United Nations or international organizations to
tell us whether moderate spanking of children is allowed in the United
States. Inasmuch as she was an individual who signed the treaty on
behalf of the United States, I think it behooves us, given her
commitment to the so-called ``intermestic'' nature of all issues, that
we ask her to be especially careful about the sovereignty of the United
States and the prerogatives of individuals in specific States.
Ambassador Albright stated that ``the promotion and protection of
international human rights may require that domestic state and local
policies in certain areas be open to international scrutiny. We have no
reason to fear it.'' I would suggest that any threat to our
sovereignty, any threat to our State and local laws, any threat to the
sanctity of the family, is a reason to be vigilant.
In order to safeguard the national interest, we must reorganize our
foreign policy apparatus. This Nation is still saddled with an unwieldy
cold war foreign policy bureaucracy in which many of the functions of
AID, ACDA, and USIA could be better handled by the State Department. I
was hoping that Ambassador Albright would come forward in support of
this effort, as did Secretary of State Christopher--however fleetingly.
The American people not only want our Government to reflect their
wishes abroad, but they want it to do so coherently, concisely, and
clearly. If we have a single voice in foreign policy representing the
administration, be it Republican or Democrat, that single voice is most
likely to get the job done, rather than the cacophony of voices from
competing fiefdoms which undercut the authority of the Secretary of
State.
For example, currently there is a ``good-cop, bad-cop'' approach to
foreign policy, whereby the entities who hand out U.S. foreign aid
maintain good relations with client nations, while the Department of
State essentially holds the line in protecting U.S. interests. We
should not be handing out foreign aid to a country at a time when that
very country is clearly acting against our interests. When we
distribute foreign aid, it should be with an understanding that the
United States agency or department asking for coordination and
cooperation from a country in one arena is the same agency or
department that will be delivering assistance to that country.
We must prioritize our expenditures. There are those in this country,
like Ambassador Albright, who think that there cannot be any cuts at
all in the foreign relations area. The Clinton administration has
actually asked for over $1 billion more in funding over last year's
level. Lobbyists for more foreign aid kept trawling the Halls of
Congress last year with their buttons saying ``Just 1 percent.'' I just
want to point out that the ``Just 1 percent'' is actually about $18
billion. Ambassador Albright is convinced that we have made ``the most
out of that (foreign aid) money.'' I am not so sanguine. We have poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into countries over the years with
little effect, because we have not tied that aid to internal changes in
many countries which would make that aid meaningful and eventually
unnecessary.
I am not in favor of abolishing foreign assistance, but I am in favor
of sending a signal around the globe that when American citizens are
tightening their belts, and exercising fiscal responsibility, there
will be some ripple effects in terms of our aid. We need to send a
clear signal that the shared sacrifice here at home should be matched
by a certain degree of sacrifice around
[[Page S605]]
the world. There is a direct correlation between our international
prestige and the fiscal health of this country. If we do not have the
ability to put our financial house in order, we will not be respected
by countries around the world. If we continue to race down the road to
bankruptcy, our influence will not be substantial. It is my sense that
our stock will rise on the exchange of the world's international
community, when we demonstrate our intent to address seriously our
responsibilities.
However, the United States is not alone in the need to downsize its
bureaucracy and eliminate waste. The United Nations must do the same.
To her credit, Ambassador Albright has been an outspoken critic of
waste, fraud, and abuse in the United Nations. She was instrumental in
initiating an oversight process. However, I am disturbed that she
supports the payment of arrears by the United States. The Congress
withheld those funds in order to exert leverage for reform. Those funds
should not be released until there is tangible evidence that those
reforms have been enacted as required by Congress.
I am casting my vote for Ambassador Albright with grave reservations.
For I want to make clear that my vote for Ambassador Albright to ascend
to the position of Secretary of State is not an endorsement of the
Clinton administration's foreign policy. As I noted, I take my ``advise
and consent'' responsibilities very seriously. I also take my oversight
responsibilities very seriously. I pray that over time, my concerns
that we are in store for 4 more years of an ad hoc foreign policy will
prove to be unfounded. Ambassador Albright is an honorable, committed,
and distinguished public official. She is eminently well qualified to
be our 63d Secretary of State. It is a privilege to be able to cast the
historic vote for the first woman to be nominated for this office. As a
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I look forward to working
with her in the future to protect America's interests abroad.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a housekeeping matter and ask
unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Second, Mr. President, following his remarks on the
nomination, Senator Dodd has requested a couple of minutes in morning
business. I ask unanimous consent that that be granted and not charged
to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. How much time does the minority control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 12 minutes 21 seconds.
Mr. DODD. I will make it briefer than that then.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator needs 10, go ahead.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Biden and also my
colleague from North Carolina for his understanding. I also thank him
and Senator Lott for the expeditious manner in which this nomination
has been treated. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the committee as
well, who engaged in a long day of testimony by Madeleine Albright,
under an arrangement that allowed us to move this nomination out of our
committee on the day of the inauguration. Now, it will allow us to vote
here today in the full Senate.
Mr. President, I believe that today's bipartisan cooperation on this
nomination will help to forge the kind of working relationship between
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate that should make it easier to
get the American people's business taken care of here in Washington. I
commend the leaders of both sides of the aisle for their efforts in
that regard.
To be honest, Mr. President, reaching consensus on this nomination
was not difficult at all. That's because the nominee we are considering
today is so highly respected by everyone in the U.S. Congress--by
Democrats and Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives.
During her nomination hearing on January 8, Ambassador Albright
demonstrated a profound understanding of the foreign policy issues
confronting the United States as we prepare to enter the 21st century.
In her opening statement on that day, she laid out very effectively, in
my view, and succinctly why all Americans should care about foreign
policy. I would like to quote her:
Do not doubt,--
Speaking of foreign policy interests.
Those interests are not geopolitical abstractions, they are
real.
It matters to our children whether they grow up in a world
where the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have
been minimized or allowed to run out of control.
It matters to our families whether illegal drugs continue
to pour into our neighborhoods from overseas.
It matters to Americans who travel abroad or go about their
daily business at home whether the scourge of international
terrorism is reduced.
It matters to our workers and business people whether they
will be unfairly forced to compete against companies that
violate fair labor standards, despoil the environment or gain
contracts not through competition but corruption.
And it matters to us all whether through inattention or
indifference, we allow small wars to grow into large ones
that put our safety and freedom at risk.
Mr. President, I believe that summarizes very well why what happens
outside of our borders is important to each and every American.
I know that time is limited and many of my colleagues wish to speak
on this issue as well. So I will just cover some brief points here, if
I can. I certainly would not want to allow the time to pass without
making some personal observations about Madeleine Albright.
Obviously, Ambassador Albright's nomination is historic for a number
of reasons, and those reasons have been outlined by the chairman of the
committee, the Senator from North Carolina, as well as others, over the
last several hours. She will be the first woman to hold the position of
Secretary of State. Without a doubt, Madeleine is eminently qualified
to discharge the duties of this office. She has the expertise, academic
background, and leadership qualities that will make her an excellent
Secretary of State. I may also point out, Mr. President, that Madeleine
Albright speaks, I believe, four or five languages fluently--which will
be a first, I think, for anyone to ever hold this position--including
her native language of Czech, as well as Russian, Polish, French, and
obviously English. This will provide an invaluable tool for the United
States, to have a Secretary of State with such a proficient ability to
communicate with leaders throughout the world.
I have known Ambassador Albright for many years. Our families have
been close. My brother, Tom, was a colleague of Madeleine's at
Georgetown University for many years, where they both taught.
Madeleine is also no stranger to the Congress and she keenly
understands the need to return to a bipartisan consensus on American
foreign policy. In fact, Mr. President, if I were asked what is the
single-most important foreign policy issue facing this country today, I
would say getting the Congress and the legislative branch to work
together. I think that is No. 1. Every other issue you can mention is
obviously important, but unless we figure out a way to return to a time
when there was comity in the foreign policy agenda, it is going to be
very difficult to deal with any foreign policy issue.
I happen to think Ambassador Albright is eminently qualified because
she knows all of this so well. We have dealt with her, we know of her
and her competence, and we have confidence in her. That is a very
important step in allowing us to work together on behalf of shared
goals. I've heard my chairman speak about this subject matter and I
have a great deal of confidence that we are going to have great success
under his leadership and the leadership of Ambassador Albright in that
regard.
Madeleine has also worked closely with both Chambers over the past 4
years as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. She
has been a voice of wisdom and reason at the United Nations during the
course of the many debates that have occurred there--on Bosnia, on
Iraq, on Haiti, on Cuba, and on the need for institutional reform
within that international body.
Why has Madeleine been so effective at representing U.S. interests?
Perhaps
[[Page S606]]
because her own life story, which may not be well known to many people,
is the epitome of what makes this country great.
Becoming the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was something of a
homecoming for Ambassador Albright. She had, after all, been at the
United Nations once before. Madeleine first came to the United States
in 1948, at the age of 11, when her father was appointed as the Czech
Ambassador to the United Nations.
Little did her family realize at that time that their stay in the
United States would be more than the usual ambassadorial rotation. Soon
after their arrival, the free Czechoslovakia they had left behind was
under the grip of totalitarian rule. It had fallen to the dictatorship
of communism.
I happen to know about that so well, because during that very brief
time when Czechoslovakia was a free government, my father was fortunate
to receive the Order of the White Lion, which was the highest honor
that Czechoslovakia could give to a non-Czech, at the end of World War
II. We still prize it as one of my father's most memorable moments in
his life. So from that relationship, my family got to know Madeleine's
family.
It is perhaps because of these unique personal experiences that
Ambassador Albright has been such an effective U.S. spokesperson at the
United Nations. Whatever the topic, Madeleine is able to speak out
passionately--from the heart--about the importance of democracy and
respect for human rights across the globe.
Even before going to the United Nations, Ambassador Albright already
had a distinguished career of public service and academic achievement.
She is a graduate of Wellesley College and Columbia University. She was
a fellow at both the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. As I mentioned earlier, she was a professor
of international relations at Georgetown University and president of
the Center for National Policy.
Her public service is equally distinguished--as a staff member to the
late Senator Edmund Muskie, then as a member of the National Security
Council in the Carter administration and most recently Ambassador to
the United Nations. Mr. President, I believe the same qualities that
made her so effective in these positions will make her particularly
effective as the next Secretary of State.
Heads of state and foreign ministries around the globe already know
that our next Secretary of State is highly respected in the United
States and internationally and that she can go toe to toe with the most
seasoned diplomats and foreign leaders. But, they should also know that
she has the full confidence of both the President and the U.S.
Congress.
Mr. President, Madeleine Albright is uniquely qualified, at this
moment in history, to be America's voice abroad. I am confident that
she will be a superb Secretary of State and I urge all to join me in
supporting her nomination.
I thank our colleague from Delaware and our chairman for moving this
along. This is the way we ought to be able to do business around here.
I commend him and thank the majority leader, as well.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today
principally to lend my support to the nomination of the Honorable
Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State.
It is a historic and fitting occasion that this will be the first
vote in the U.S. Senate in the 105th Congress. I have come to know
Ambassador Albright in her work at the United Nations, and have a very
high regard for her competency. And I am pleased that the President has
made this historic appointment because she is the first woman who will
have this very important position.
She has an extraordinary record in academia: president of the Center
for National Policy; a professor of international affairs at Georgetown
University; a senior fellow in Soviet and Eastern European affairs at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies; served on the
National Security Council staff; has excellent academic credentials
from Wellesley; also a masters and doctorate from Columbia University;
and, perhaps most importantly is a graduate of the Senate family,
having served as chief legislative assistant to Senator Edmund Muskie.
I had occasion to work with Ambassador Albright on a number of
matters. One of the most important was working with her on the War
Crimes Tribunal, where the United States has played an active role in
bringing to justice the international criminals from Bosnia and Rwanda.
She accompanied me in a meeting which I had several years ago with then
Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and
there has been really good cooperation from the U.S. Government on that
important matter. I have had an occasion to visit the War Crimes
Tribunal on two occasions; to visit with our staff there, and also the
judges. She has played a very important role in promoting the War
Crimes Tribunal.
It is my hope that Secretary of State Albright will pursue an
activist foreign policy and will lend the prestige and the power of the
United States to solve complex international problems, one which I
refer to--and only one for the brevity of time--which involves the
efforts to bring conciliation between the Governments of India and
Pakistan.
About a year and a half ago Senator Brown and I were traveling in
India and met with Prime Minister Gowda, who commented about his
interest in having the subcontinent nuclear free. We then discussed the
matter with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. The ministers of
those two countries have not met. Senator Brown and I wrote to the
President urging that he invite them to the Oval Office.
I mention that only as an illustration of what I am hopeful Secretary
of State Albright will activate on U.S. policy.
I think it is important for the United States to remain active
internationally. She has an extraordinary background having been born
in Czechoslovakia and having come to this country at the age of 11, and
is also known to be fluent in four languages.
So I am pleased to lend my support to her nomination today.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
Today, indeed, is a historic day. We gather on the Senate floor to be
presented both to ourselves and the American people the nomination of
Dr. Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State--Madeleine Albright,
the very first woman to be nominated Secretary of State; Madeleine
Albright, the very first refugee to be nominated Secretary of State.
What a wonderful, historic opportunity we have to confirm her
nomination and to make history as well as to help carry out President
Bill Clinton's foreign policy, to make the world a better and safer
place.
I know Dr. Albright well. We have been friends and colleagues for
many years, and I am so enthusiastic about her nomination because of
her skills, her experience, her character, her values. She is a woman
of honor, integrity and extraordinary patriotism.
As President Clinton was making his decision, I called him. I called
him to urge that he consider Dr. Albright. I said there are three
important reasons why I felt Madeleine Albright is the best person to
serve as Secretary of State in this new millennium. First, she is a
woman of great competence in the area of foreign policy and
demonstrated skills in that area as our Ambassador to the United
Nations.
Second, her remarkable personal history is the story of America.
And third, she has a great and unusual ability to communicate our
foreign policy to the American people and to the world.
First, she would bring great competency and experience to the post.
Foreign policy is her life's work and her life's passion. In addition
to her dazzling intellectual ability and scholarship, Ambassador
Albright has diplomatic skills and the understanding of what this new
world order is all about.
She has a proven record. As our Ambassador to the United Nations, she
showed brains and backbone asserting U.S. policy. We do not need to
question whether she can deal with China, different cultures or with
dictators. She has already done it. She is respected by our allies and
by our foes. She has proven that she is firm, fair, and tenacious.
[[Page S607]]
For the past 4 years, she has defended our values and interests at
the United Nations, and she has done more to bring fiscal
responsibility to the United Nations. She stood up to dictators and
stood by our friends.
As Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright will do something else.
She will bring a story of America to people from the old world order as
well as the new and emerging one. I discussed with President Clinton
her personal story, that she is the daughter of the last Ambassador
from a free Czechoslovakia until the end of the cold war. While her
father was in this country, Czechoslovakia fell to a dictatorship. He
defected so that he could serve Czechoslovakia by being a good American
and by being a spokesman in this area. She comes from a history and
tradition where patriots are willing to make sacrifices. She knows what
it means to lose a home to dictatorship and therefore she reaches out
to others who experience the same pain. She will understand those who
labor tirelessly in exile to reclaim their freedom, and will support
them.
And, as new immigrants, Madeleine Albright and her family used
America's great opportunity structure so they could rebuild their
lives, based on opportunity, merit, and hard work. Where else in the
world could a refugee rise to become the highest ranking woman in our
history?
She has also been involved in the social movements of our time,
whether the civil rights movement or the women's movement, or those
social movements that help create a democracy. The world is not just
transformed by treaty and law, but cultural and social transformations
often occur through democratic social movements, institutionalized in a
positive way. And Albright will do that.
As a child whose family fled from Europe as the Iron Curtain was
raised and slammed down on the people of Central Europe, she stood up.
She knows what this is all about. As a member of an immigrant family
making a start in a new country, she will work to ensure that our
foreign aid is used to foster opportunity around the world.
Mr. President, the third reason Ambassador Albright will be an
extraordinary Secretary of State is she has an unusual talent for
communication. She has already demonstrated her capacity to articulate
the President's policy and agenda, not only to the world, but also to
the American people. She will enable people to understand our American
policies. This is essential to mobilize support for these policies,
both at home and abroad. Even if our policies are not supported, they
should be understood and respected. No one does a better job of
explaining American foreign policy to the American people than
Madeleine Albright. Most people are understandably concerned about
their jobs, their children, their security. It is a lot to ask them to
focus on Bosnia, Haiti, Chechnya, human rights, China. And after paying
billions of dollars to win the cold war, many Americans wonder why we
must continue that burden of leadership.
We cannot solve every problem in the world and we should not try. But
we must act where we can make a difference, where American values and
interests are at stake. With Dr. Madeleine Albright as Secretary of
State, we will continue to have a foreign policy that reflects our
values, that serves our interests, in consultation with Congress, and
with mobilized American support.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying this. There is an added
bonus to Dr. Madeleine Albright's nomination. The Senate is about to
confirm this highest ranking woman in American history. As the first
woman elected by my own party to serve in her own right, and as the
senior woman in the Senate, I must say this is truly a historic
occasion. This is a moment for all of us to take pride in, in the
opportunity and fairness of our country.
Mr. President, the American people will not have to worry about
Madeleine Albright's service. When she was nominated, she said this to
her daughters, ``When you were little girls I often used to worry where
you were and what you are doing. Now you will wonder where your mother
is and what she is doing.''
But, you know, the American people will not have to worry. Whether it
is in Cyprus, Singapore, China, she will be defending American values
and interests. She will be one of the best Secretaries of State we have
ever had.
Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I would like to extend my
appreciation to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the
way he conducted the hearing and the nomination process, with the
fairness and civility and the expeditious way he does it.
I, and I know Dr. Albright and her entire family who support her,
appreciate the courtesy and expeditious nature in which the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina has dealt with this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the
nomination of Madeleine K. Albright to be Secretary of State. We stand
at the end of a century of European conflict: two world wars followed
by a cold war. In the wake of this hundred years' war it is hugely
important that the President has nominated a woman, born in Europe
amidst this turmoil, to be his Secretary of State to lead us into the
next century.
The first point I would like to make, a point that deserves to be
stressed by every Senator, is that when Ambassador Albright is
confirmed, she will become the 64th Secretary of State, and the first
woman ever to hold that office. No woman has ever held a higher office
in the executive branch. I congratulate both the President and his
distinguished nominee on this milestone.
Ambassador Albright came to the United States at the age of 11,
having experienced herself the realities of this hundred years' war.
Most recently she comes to us from Turtle Bay, NY, where she has served
as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As the only
Ambassador-Senator, and having served in the same post at the United
Nations, I feel it incumbent upon me to inform my colleagues that for
her to have endured 4 years of mind-numbing addresses at the United
Nations is no small feat.
As Ambassador, she has earned the respect of many. Not the least of
which are the editors of the New Republic who wrote in a December 30,
1996, editorial:
The good news about Albright, in sum, is that she is a
creature of the twentieth century. For this reason, she
understands how appallingly similar to this century the next
century is likely to be. A person whose primal scene was
Nazism and then Stalinism is not likely to get drunk on talk
of a new millennium. She is likely to know, rather, that evil
is never permanently retired, and certainly not by
technological change. Albright recognized early that the most
pressing order of business for Clinton's foreign policy in
its first term was not protectionism, it was genocide. And a
person whose primal scene was not Vietnam will know that
there is only one way to stop genocide, and this is the
harsh, airborne way.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we find ourselves at the
end of a century of conflict. We began the century trying to stay out
of the affairs of Europe. That lasted only through Wilson's first term.
Now we end the century having played a pivotal role in the events which
shaped it. This is an occasion on which we recall the great hopes that
Franklin D. Roosevelt had for the United Nations. We can now use the
fruit of our century-long labors, most importantly the United Nations
Charter, to realize the hopes of Roosevelt, Truman, Marshall, and
Acheson.
Nowhere is the importance of the Charter more pronounced than in
Bosnia. I have spoken in this chamber many times on the subject of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Had we invoked the charter early in the
conflict and its provision for demonstrations under article 42, by
``air, sea, or land forces, [to] restore international peace and
security,'' much of the genocide that followed could have been
prevented. We had the tools, but waited too long to use them.
The Bosnian conflict is far from over. Though the Dayton agreement
and NATO forces have achieved relative stability over the past 13
months, there are still many important issues to be resolved.
None is more important, or pressing, then the work of the
International Criminal Tribunal. Today 75 persons have been indicted
for war crimes. It is appalling to report that 68 of them remain at
large. Not because they cannot be found, but because pressure has not
[[Page S608]]
been brought to bear on countries to deliver indicted war criminals to
The Hague.
This is an issue that cannot afford delay. I would ask the Secretary-
designate to seek to address this important problem at the earliest
possible date. She has made such a pledge during her testimony before
the Foreign Relations Committee and I look forward to working with her
to achieve these goals.
I say this with the deepest respect for Ambassador Albright, who,
having spent 4 years at the United Nations, is keenly aware of the
importance of these issues. I wish her well on her historic
appointment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that most Americans realize
the world in which we live has changed dramatically over the last
decade. The world which had been divided into two hostile yet stable
camps since the end of World War II entered a new era when the Soviet
Union ceased to exist. When the Berlin Wall fell the divide between the
East and West did as well, and we entered a new era.
Today, democracy is spreading around the globe and our international
priorities which once focused on strategic arms reduction treaties can
now focus on other issues such as improving relations with democratic
countries in South America, Asia, and Eastern Europe that have
burgeoning market economies.
These tremendous changes, however, come hand in hand with new
challenges. Fighting international terrorism and crime is important to
law abiding citizens everywhere. Fighting international drug
traffickers is of particular importance to the citizens of New Mexico
since approximately 70 percent of all illegal drugs entering the United
States comes across our southern border with Mexico.
Helping Russia emerge as a stable democracy with a growing economy
is, also, very important. A strong, democratic Russia would be a
stabilizing influence in Asia and could help prevent the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico is already working with Russia to safeguard
its nuclear weapons and ensure that nuclear materials do not fall into
the wrong hands.
Another important challenge is helping China emerge as a peaceful,
responsible world power. A friendly China with its strong economic
growth, huge population, and vast resources would be both a valuable
partner in trade and a valuable ally in Asia. An aggressive China,
however, could become a destabilizing influence in a region that is
vital to our national interests.
The United States faces a number of other important international
challenges. Among them are: arriving at an agreeable method to allow
Eastern European and central Asian countries to join the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization [NATO], resolving the dispute between Greece and
Turkey over Cyprus, finding a lasting political solution to the
problems of the Korean Peninsula, and securing the peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and bringing the young men and women of the United States
armed services home safely.
With all of the changes of the last decade, one might view the world
as unstable. In fact, facing such a list of daunting tasks, one might
consider these challenges insurmountable. I view them as an
opportunity.
With strong leadership, and clearly defined and consistent
international policies, the post-cold-war era could be one of even
greater American prosperity. I believe Madeleine Albright, as Secretary
of State, will provide such leadership.
Madeleine Albright spent 2 years working here, in the U.S. Senate,
when she served as chief legislative assistant to Senator Muskie from
1976 to 1978. Her intelligence and competence were recognized when, in
1978, she moved to the National Security Council and the White House to
handle foreign policy legislation. Many foreign policy professionals
might consider being on the National Security Council the pinnacle of a
career, but Madeleine Albright was just getting started. In 1981 she
was awarded a fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars at the Smithsonian. She became a professor of international
affairs, and the director of the women in foreign service program at
the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. She served as president of
the Center for National Policy. In 1993, she was appointed U.S.
Representative to the United Nations, and made a member of President
Clinton's Cabinet.
Madeleine Albright is living proof of the American dream. Having fled
Czechoslovakia and both the Nazis and Communists, Madeleine Albright
came to the United States, studied hard, worked hard, and has now been
nominated for the office of United States Secretary of State. Madeleine
Albright, once a persecuted immigrant, is now the first women in United
States history to be nominated to the highest office in the State
Department. Not since Margaret Thatcher governed Britain has a woman
occupied a position on such a scale of international influence. As
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright will negotiate with the world's
most powerful leaders.
Mr. President, Madeleine Albright has done a superb job as Ambassador
to the United Nations. She has worked to make the United Nations more
efficient and more responsive to U.S. interests. She prevailed in
urging the NATO bombing in Bosnia, which she argues eventually led to
the Dayton Peace Accord last year. She condemned Cuba when it shot down
two unarmed civilian airplanes over international air space. She has
fought for the freedom and the rights of people around the world. For
these reasons and others, I believe Madeleine Albright will provide the
strong leadership necessary make the post-cold-war era one of
opportunity, cooperation, and American leadership. It is my honor to
support Madeleine Albright for the position of U.S. Secretary of State.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong reservations about
the administration's foreign policies as we debate the confirmation of
Ambassador Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State.
Following President Clinton's direction, Ambassador Albright signed
the United Nations Rights of the Child Convention, a document which I
believe is seriously flawed. As a nation, we hold our children dear. We
have established laws on a national level and local levels to
adequately protect our children and the rights of our families. The
idea that a foreign state or an international federation knows better
than we how to raise our children is abhorrent to our very essence.
We have engaged in diplomatic and physical conflict with other
nations throughout our entire history over just such an issue. The root
of all autocratic regimes has been that the state knows best. We
cannot, we must not let that idea insinuate itself into how we conduct
ourselves as a nation. I am concerned that Ambassador Albright through
her vote in the United Nations, may have done just that.
Her support of policies which have come dangerously close to
relinquishing command of our own troops to United Nations commanders
who may or may not share the democratic ethic of our command authority
concerned me in the past and concerns me today.
The rules under which our troops conduct themselves while assigned to
duties with the United Nations places them under extraordinary
pressure. Our soldiers are required to make judgments as to
appropriateness of orders received by U.N. authorities not only as to
their legality but as to whether the commands are in concert with
United States policy. We should never place them in such a position,
ever. Currently, if the policy of the United States comes into conflict
with U.N. orders, it becomes incumbent upon the individual soldier to
recognize the conflict and make the proper choice as to whether to
follow the order or not. Recently though, to complicate that soldier's
responsibility further, U.S. policy shifts have occurred during ongoing
operations; peacekeeping mutating to nation building, embargo
enforcement un-enforced. Ambassador Albright must not let this happen
on her watch.
As Secretary of State, Ambassador Albright will be responsible for
directing and implementing our foreign policy. I hope that if our
stated policy for instance, is to impose an arms embargo on a war torn
region that she would neither tacitly approve nor be a part of a plan
to approve the introduction of inflammatory religious extremists and
the weapons they chose to introduce into the region while hiding that
fact
[[Page S609]]
from this body, the rest of the Congress or the American people.
As Secretary of State she must realize that the sovereignty of the
United States can never be made secondary to any country, entity or
organization.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a special honor for all of us who
know and respect Madeleine Albright to vote for her confirmation as
Secretary of State. This is an historic moment for the country, and I
know that she will serve with great distinction as the first woman in
our history to hold that high office.
Over the years, Madeleine Albright has always been an excellent
source of wise advice to many of us in Congress on matters of foreign
policy. I have always valued her counsel and respected her leadership,
and the President's decision to nominate her as Secretary of State is a
well-deserved honor.
In the course of her extraordinary career, she has skillfully
combined public service and academic pursuits, and these abilities make
her especially well-suited for the challenges she will face as
Secretary of State. Many of us first came to know her when she was an
able assistant to our former colleague Senator Edmund Muskie, and later
as a member of President Carter's National Security Council. And all of
us were proud of her brilliant service in recent years as our
Ambassador to the United Nations.
Academically, she has served as a senior fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, as a professor at Georgetown's
School of Foreign Service, and as president of the Center for National
Policy.
Her personal history of fleeing Hitler and Communism as a child from
her home in Czechoslovakia and her rise in this country to the position
of Secretary of State is one of the great American success stories of
our time and a vivid symbol that the American dream is alive and well
in our day and generation.
I commend her for her nomination, and I look forward to working
closely with her in the years to come. I ask unanimous consent that a
list of the 64 persons who have served as Secretary of State, including
Madeleine Albright, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
SECRETARIES OF STATE 1789-1977
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name When appointed President
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thomas Jefferson.............. Sept. 26, 1789.. George Washington.
Do........................... Mar. 4, 1793.... Do.
2. Edmund Randolph............... Jan. 2, 1794.... Do.
3. Timothy Pickering............. Dec. 10, 1795... Do.
Do........................... Mar. 4, 1797.... John Adams.
4. John Marshall................. May 13, 1800.... Do.
5. James Madison................. Mar. 5, 1801.... Thomas Jefferson.
Do........................... Mar. 4, 1805.... Do.
6. Robert Smith.................. Mar. 6, 1809.... James Madison.
7. James Monroe.................. Apr. 2, 1811.... Do.
Do........................... Feb. 28, 1815... Do.
8. John Quincy Adams............. Mar. 5, 1817.... James Monroe.
Do........................... Mar. 5, 1821.... Do.
9. Henry Clay.................... Mar. 7, 1825.... John Quincy Adams.
10. Martin Van Buren............. Mar. 6, 1829.... Andrew Jackson.
11. Edward Livingston............ May 24, 1831.... Do.
12. Louis McLane................. May 29, 1833.... Do.
13. John Forsyth................. June 27, 1834... Do.
Do........................... Mar. 4, 1837.... Martin Van Buren.
14. Daniel Webster............... Mar. 5, 1841.... William H.
Harrison.
Do........................... Apr. 6, 1841.... John Tyler.
15. Abel P. Upshur............... July 24, 1843... Do.
16. John C. Calhoun.............. Mar. 6, 1844.... Do.
17. James Buchanan............... Mar. 6, 1845.... James K. Polk.
18. John M. Clayton.............. Mar. 7, 1849.... Zachary Taylor.
19. Daniel Webster............... July 22, 1850... Millard Fillmore.
20. Edward Everett............... Nov. 6, 1852.... Do.
21. William L. Marcy............. Mar. 7, 1853.... Franklin Pierce.
22. Lewis Cass................... Mar. 6, 1857.... James Buchanan.
23. Jeremiah S. Black............ Dec. 17, 1860... Do.
24. William H. Seward............ Mar. 5, 1861.... Abraham Lincoln.
Do........................... Mar. 4, 1865.... Do.
Do........................... Apr. 15, 1865... Andrew Johnson.
25. Elihu B. Washburne........... Mar. 5, 1869.... Ulysses S. Grant.
26. Hamilton Fish................ Mar. 11, 1869... Do.
Do........................... Mar. 17, 1873... Do.
27. William M. Evarts............ Mar. 12, 1877... Rutherford B.
Hayes.
28. James G. Blaine.............. Mar. 5, 1881.... James A. Garfield.
29. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen... Dec. 12, 1881... Chester A. Arthur.
30. Thomas F. Bayard............. Mar. 6, 1885.... Grover Cleveland.
31. James G. Blaine.............. Mar. 5, 1889.... Benjamin Harrison.
32. John W. Foster............... June 29, 1892... Do.
33. Walter Q. Gresham............ Mar. 6, 1893.... Grover Cleveland.
34. Richard Olney................ June 8, 1895.... Do.
35. John Sherman................. Mar. 5, 1897.... William McKinley.
36. William R. Day............... Apr. 26, 1898... Do.
37. John Hay..................... Sept. 20, 1898.. Do.
Do........................... Mar. 5, 1901.... Do.
Do........................... Mar. 6, 1905.... Theodore Roosevelt.
38. Elihu Root................... July 7, 1905.... Do.
39. Robert Bacon................. Jan. 27, 1909... Do.
40. Philander C. Knox............ Mar. 5, 1909.... William H. Taft.
41. William Jennings Bryan....... Mar. 5, 1913.... Woodrow Wilson.
42. Robert Lansing............... June 23, 1915... Do.
43. Bainbridge Colby............. Mar. 22, 1920... Do.
44. Charles Evans Hughes......... Mar. 4, 1921.... Warren G. Harding.
Do........................... ................ Calvin Coolidge.
45. Frank B. Kellogg............. Feb. 18, 1925... Do.
46. Henry Lewis Stimson.......... Mar. 5, 1929.... Herbert C. Hoover.
47. Cordell Hull................. Mar. 4, 1933.... Franklin D.
Roosevelt.
48. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr..... Nov. 30, 1944... Do.
49. James F. Byrnes.............. July 2, 1945.... Harry S. Truman.
50. George C. Marshall........... Jan. 8, 1947.... Do.
51. Dean G. Acheson.............. Jan. 19, 1949... Do.
52. John Foster Dulles........... Jan. 21, 1953... Dwight D.
Eisenhower.
53. Christian A. Herter.......... Apr. 21, 1959... Do.
54. Dean Rusk.................... Jan. 21, 1961... John F. Kennedy.
Do........................... ................ Lyndon B. Johnson.
55. William P. Rogers............ Jan. 21, 1969... Richard M. Nixon.
56. Henry A. Kissinger........... Sept. 21, 1973.. Do.
Do........................... ................ Gerald R. Ford.
57. Cyrus Vance.................. Jan. 21, 1977... Jimmy Carter.
58. Edmund S. Muskie............. May 8, 1980..... Do.
59. Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr..... Jan. 22, 1981... Ronald Reagan.
60. George P. Shultz............. July 16, 1982... Do.
61. James A. Baker III........... Jan. 27, 1989... George Bush
62. Lawrence S. Eagleburger...... Dec. 10, 1992... Do.
63. Warren Christopher........... Jan. 22, 1993... William J. Clinton.
64. Madeleine Korbel Albright.... Jan. 22, 1997 Do.
(confirmed by
Senate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have known Madeleine Albright for many
years and consider her extraordinarily well qualified for the important
post of Secretary of State. She has the knowledge, experience,
intelligence, candor, energy, and strength of will necessary for this
difficult job. I will support her confirmation with enthusiasm.
By now most Americans have heard the compelling story of Madeleine
Albright's family flight from first fascism, and then communism. After
coming to the United States, Madeleine Albright compiled an impressive
academic resume, including a B.A. from Wellesley College and a masters
and doctorate from Columbia University. Her subsequent career has been
devoted to international affairs and government--from Capitol Hill, to
the National Security Council, to the challenging post of United States
U.N. Ambassador. She served as a professor at the Georgetown
University's School of Foreign Service and a scholar at both the
Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. Prior to her
appointment to the U.N. post, Ambassador Albright was president of the
Center for National Policy, a nonprofit research institution.
By any measure, the job of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is a
most demanding one and Ambassador Albright handled it with great skill,
earning praise from across the political spectrum. During Ambassador
Albright's tenure at the United Nations, I had the pleasure of working
with her to promote the establishment of an inspector general within
the U.N. system. Ambassador Albright worked long and hard--and
eventually successfully--to build a consensus among the member states
for this U.S. initiative.
The cold war no longer provides the overarching architecture for U.S.
foreign policy. And I doubt that any similarly comprehensive substitute
will evolve in the near future. U.S. foreign policy now has several
more or less equal priority objectives. Balancing these objectives one
against the other and moving them all forward in today's complex
international environment is a challenging task. I am confident that
Ambassador Albright has not only the intellect to meet this challenge
but also--and equally importantly--the ability to clearly articulate
for the benefit of the American people the national interest involved
in the foreign policy challenges we face and the choices we make.
I am pleased that someone of Madeleine Albright's character and
ability has been chosen, and has agreed, to serve this President and
this Nation as our primary representative to the world. I congratulate
her on her imminent confirmation and look forward to working with her
in the future.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today is indeed a historic milestone for
our Nation. For the majority of this country's history, a full half of
our citizens were left without the right to vote therefore they were
left without a voice, without a collective voice in the direction of
domestic affairs or international affairs for our country.
With the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920, this flawed policy
was corrected, however since that time progress and change in this area
has come, but very slowly. Today we take a great step forward for our
country and the world in approving the nomination of Secretary of State
designee Madeleine Albright.
Although there is little controversy surrounding our vote today on
this confirmation we should take a moment to note the historical
significance of this occasion.
There was a time not long ago when the nomination of any woman
regardless of how qualified or experienced to lead our Nation's foreign
policy would have been at the least controversial, and at the most
unthinkable. Today, that time is over.
Ambassador Albright's confirmation is all but certain in just a few
moments
[[Page S610]]
with the vote of this Senate. She is a tribute to her gender, but it is
not to her gender that this accomplishment is due, it is through her
exemplary career in foreign service.
To be here today on the floor of this historic Chamber to cast my
first vote as a U.S. Senator is in itself a exhilarating experience,
but to be able to cast that vote for Madeleine Albright the first woman
ever to serve as Secretary of State of this great Nation makes it even
more memorable.
Thank you Mr. President for the opportunity to share these thoughts.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the occasion of Ambassador Albright's
imminent confirmation as Secretary of State raises some deep concerns
regarding this administration's foreign policy.
While I believe there is much to be admired about Ambassador
Albright--she has a reputation as a frank and forthright speaker, who
is able to articulate forcibly her views--I have deep reservations
about what I believe is her flawed philosophy of the role of U.S.
forces in the conduct foreign policy.
As our U.N. Ambassador over the last 4 years, Mrs. Albright has
consistently articulated an alarming vision of post-cold-war foreign
policy. It is one which designates the United Nations as the world's
guarantor of peace and in so doing seeks to subjugate United States'
interests to this world body.
In June 1993, she articulated the concept of assertive
multilateralism as a way of responding to internal political and
economic turmoil, defiant regimes, and failed societies in countries
around the globe.
The United States would act primarily as a part of the United Nations
to respond to crises throughout the world.
Fundamental to this premise is the belief that every conflict, every
disaster will eventually impact the United States and is therefore in
our interests to intervene, militarily, to intervene.
The United Nations as the instrument of this collective security
calls the shots and the United States responds by sending troops. The
United States participating with other nations would be able to right
the wrongs in the world. This is faulty in concept and dangerous in
execution.
Consider some of the statements she has made:
Our goal is to foster the development of a community
capable of easing, if not terminating, the abominable
injustices and conditions that still plague civilization,
because only in such a community can America flourish.
We are also facing increased ethnic and subnational
violence. Wherever we turn, someone is fighting or
threatening someone else. These disputes may be far removed
from our borders but in today's global environment, chaos is
an infectious disease.
The role of the United States is then to ``reform or isolate the
rogue states that act to undermine the stability and prosperity of the
larger community and * * * to contain the chaos and ease the suffering
in regions of greatest humanitarian concern.''
There is an obvious and immediate danger to this type of thinking.
The reality is there are many problems in the world which we simply
cannot resolve. In exerting great effort to accomplish impossible goals
we endanger the lives of our troops, damage U.S. leadership and
prestige, squander valuable resources, and destroy the will of the
American people to intervene when our own interests are indeed
threatened.
The first year of the Clinton administration was dominated by behind
the scenes effort to develop a document which would serve as the
Clinton policy initiative on multilateral action. The consistent theme
of this Presidential Review Directive [PRD-13] was to upgrade the
U.N.'s military capabilities and to increase--even institutionalize--
the U.S. involvement with U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Ambassador Albright's comments reveal the lines that PRD-13 would
follow.
We favor substantial enlargement and reorganization of the
peacekeeping headquarters staff and the creation of a
permanent foundation for rapid 24-hour communication,
intelligence, lift, recruitment, training, and the full
spectrum of in-theater logistical support.
Clinton's foreign policy team sought to expand the United Nations to
a sort of global police force and equip it to carry out effectively
this unrealistic job. The draft document included a rapid expansion of
U.N. military capability as well as the idea of putting U.S. forces
under U.N. command. This elevated peacekeeping philosophy is
illustrated by events in Somalia.
During President Clinton's first year, he turned over the Bush
limited food-delivery mission in Somalia to the United Nations. Over
the next few months, United States troops were used to hunt down Somali
warlord Aideed and participate in what became known as ``nation-
building'' activities in order to--in Madeleine Albright's words--
``promote democracy in that strife-torn nation.'' Ultimately 18 U.S.
Rangers were killed by Aideed's men. The last American soldiers left
Somalia in March 1994--100,000 troops were sent to Somalia; 30 died and
175 were wounded and at a cost of $1.5 billion. Since our departure,
fighting erupted and today Somalia is no more better off for our
misguided nation-building experience.
The tragedy of losing United States troops in Somalia forced the
administration to back away from some of the aims of PRD-13. PRD-13,
when finally signed as PDD-25, had undergone a number of changes.
Madeleine Albright now couched the document in terms of fixing U.N.
peacekeeping not expanding it. But the underlying premise of the policy
still had not changed: greater emphasis on the United Nations for
resolving conflict. In justifying use of force there was a shift in
definition of national security interest.
In 1993, Ambassador Albright said:
We have a national security interest in containing and,
wherever possible, resolving regional conflicts * * * the
cost of runaway regional conflicts sooner or later comes home
to America. [June 1993.]
Her viewpoint--not unique to this administration--fundamentally
shifts what previous Presidencies defined as a national security
interest and consequently where the President would use American force.
This significant alteration of U.S. interests has the profound impact
of justifying greater and more diverse missions for our troops. Under
the rubric of peace operations, U.S. forces have found themselves in
almost every conceivable type mission: delivering food and medicine;
building bridges; training police; hunting down warlords.
Colin Powell's comments in his autobiography further illustrate
Madeleine Albright's thinking. He describes a meeting at the White
House when she asked him ``What's the point of having this superb
military you're always talking about if we can't use it?''
The practical effects of this doctrine have led to our military
involvement in Haiti, Bosnia, Central Africa, and other areas only
peripherally in our interests.
What I fear Ambassador Albright has yet to understand is that there
are serious costs to using force when our vital interests are not at
issue. None of these interventions carried out or contemplated by the
Clinton administration were in our security interests. And yet, great
numbers of troops have risked their lives and we have spent billions of
dollars.
In Somalia, our forces left, humiliated and at great cost, with the
turmoil on the ground basically unchanged. In Haiti, we intervened to
restore democracy but prospects for its survival are very much in
question, despite our military contribution of $1.2 billion. After 2
years of gradual escalation of United States intervention in Bosnia,
the President committed 20,000 of our forces to serve a year to enforce
a separation between the warring factions. U.S. troops now extended for
18 months have the task of ensuring that civilian reconstruction
proceeds. No one knows what will happen in Bosnia once our troops are
removed.
The military has borne great expense because of these missions. And
in an era of declining military budgets, there is a growing anxiety
about our capability to deal with future national security threats.
Last year military testimony before the Armed Services Committee
revealed serious strains in our military planning and budgeting.
The President's proposed budget for defense was $10 billion lower
than what was appropriated the previous year. And yet testimony after
testimony by the CINC's and Service Chiefs indicated strong concerns
with levels of spending. Readiness, modernization, quality of life were
all areas needing focus and
[[Page S611]]
funding. The services altogether indicated their desire for more than
$15 billion in increases.
While the administration has failed to provide adequately for our
defense needs, it continues to deploy our troops in more and more
missions around the world. In recent years our forces have been
seriously overextended. We are asking our forces to do more but have
drastically cut force structure by 30 percent. General Reimer, the Army
Chief of Staff, testified that requirements on the Army have risen 300
percent. Today, more than 41,000 U.S. soldiers are deployed on nearly
1,700 missions in 60 countries.
And while the President failed to provide adequately for the
military--to meet their current and future warfighting needs--he
requested a separate budget for contingency operations--a clear
indication that the trend toward greater peacekeeping missions will
continue.
I am deeply concerned that the growing use of our forces in areas of
peripheral interest will have a long lasting and detrimental impact on
our military--and ultimately on the ability of the United States to
protect our vital interests. The views of Ambassador Albright confirm
her belief in using troops in this way. While the Armed Services
Committee can take steps to provide our forces with the funding they
need, there is little we can do to reign in how our troops are being
used. these essential foreign policy decisions are made by the
President, who is both Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. It is my
fervent hope that extraordinary caution and wise deliberation will be
exercised during the next 4 years in determining how to use American
forces to further the foreign policy goals of this administration.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination
of Madeleine Albright to become our Nation's 64th Secretary of State. I
have been privileged to know and work with Ambassador Albright for
nearly two decades and I am confident that she will be a determined,
effective voice for American interests as we face the foreign policy
challenges of the 21st century.
This is a historic nomination. With this vote, Madeleine Albright
will become the Nation's first woman to hold the office of Secretary of
State. But it's clear that this nomination was not based on gender--but
on qualifications. Madeleine Albright has been an outstanding leader
for America and an outspoken advocate for freedom.
Today Madeleine Albright steps out in front and breaks a longstanding
barrier. But that's no surprise because she has made a life of doing
just that. From the time her family broke from the barriers of
totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia and the brutal grip of Hitler and
Stalin, Madeleine Albright has dedicated her life to spreading freedom
and promoting international understanding.
She did it as a member of President Carter's National Security
Council, as a noted scholar and professor at Georgetown University, as
the president of the Center for National Policy, and--most recently--as
America's Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
As in all her other work, Madeleine Albright brought energy and
vitality to the job of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. And her
plain spoken determination helped restore democracy in Haiti, prosecute
war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, and make headway in achieving a
comprehensive nuclear test ban. She also led the charge to achieve much
needed reforms in the United Nations--by advocating lower budgets, more
accountability, and a streamlined bureaucracy.
Madeleine Albright has rightly observed that the United States is the
world's indispensable nation. But I would add that she herself has been
an indispensable part of the foreign policy achievements of the Clinton
administration over the past 4 years and she will continue to be in the
years to come.
Finally, Mr. President, I look forward to working with Secretary
Albright on an issue that I have long championed--ending abusive and
exploitative child labor around the world. I hope that she will use the
office of the Secretary of State to focus attention on this deplorable
practice as she meets with leaders in government and commerce around
the world. Working together, I know that we can finally end the curse
of child labor.
Mr. President, I believe that Madeleine Albright is an excellent
choice to become our Nation's top diplomat and I am proud to cast my
vote in support of her nomination.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in supporting the confirmation of Ambassador
Madeleine Albright to be our Nation's 63d Secretary of State.
Many have commented on the historic nature of Ambassador Albright's
nomination to be the first woman Secretary of State, the highest
ranking of all Cabinet officers. But this would be just one more of a
long history of ground-breaking roles in Madeleine Albright's
distinguished career.
For instance, over the past 4 years, she has been the only woman
serving as a U.N. Ambassador on the Security Council. In the first
Clinton administration, she was the only woman to serve in a national
security capacity on the President's Cabinet. She was also the first
woman to serve as the top foreign policy advisor to a Presidential
candidate, a role she served in 1988 to Gov. Michael Dukakis.
Ambassador Albright will bring a superb background to the job of
Secretary of State. I would note that she began her rise in the foreign
policy field as the top foreign affairs advisor to our former
colleague, Senator Edmund Muskie when he was a senior member of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Then after serving on the staff of the
National Security Council in the Carter administration, she worked for
over a decade as professor at Georgetown University and in various
centers for public policy research.
Since 1992, Madeleine Albright has served ably as the U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations and has been a formal member of the President's
Cabinet. This is a rare recognition granted to a U.N. Ambassador, and
she was the first U.N. Ambassador to serve in this role since
Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick in the first Reagan administration.
At the United Nations, Ambassador Albright became known and respected
as a fierce defender of American interests and values. She took the
administration's lead role 1 year ago in denouncing Cuba's unprovoked
murder of two American pilots who were flying unarmed civilian aircraft
over international waters near Cuba. She emphasized the importance of
this outrageous act of cowardice by Fidel Castro's totalitarian
government with characteristically direct language that helped focus
the attention of the world.
She also worked diligently--and successfully--in maintaining
comprehensive economic sanctions on the repressive regime of Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein. Despite the call by some nations of the world
to lift those sanctions, she has succeeded in keeping them in place
until the Government of Iraq ends its threats to its neighbors, shows
greater respect for the human rights of its own people, and totally
dismantles all weapons of mass production programs. These actions are
called for not only in a series of Security Council resolutions enacted
at the end of the 1991 gulf war, but also in obligations Iraq itself
accepted in the cease fire agreement that ended that war.
Most recently, Ambassador Albright insisted on the replacement of
U.N. Secretary Gen. Boutros Boutros-Ghali because of his inadequate
attention to necessary reform of the U.N. system. She refused to bow to
pressure from other countries--on the first Security Council vote on
this issue the United States was opposed 14 to 1--and insisted on the
election of a new reform-minded Secretary General as a matter of
principle. With the recent successful election of the new U.N.
Secretary Gen. Kofi Annan, there now is an opportunity for revitalizing
this important international institution and restoring a bipartisan
consensus on the United Nations in the Congress and among the American
people.
As shown in just these few examples, Madeleine Albright is a strong
advocate for U.S. foreign policy and is more than willing to take the
tough and principled stands. It is my hope that she will help to
restore American leadership and assertiveness in the international
community.
In addition to her strong qualifications for the job, Madeleine
Albright
[[Page S612]]
also brings a compelling personal experience and family background to
this job. The daughter of a Czech diplomat, her family came to the
United States as refugees after World War II. In fact, in the preceding
years, her family had twice fled the forces of totalitarianism: first
escaping the advancing armies of Nazi Germany, and again the Iron
Curtain's descent on her homeland of Czechoslovakia, a country that had
previously had the most vibrant economy and democratic system in
central Europe.
During her confirmation hearing, Ambassador Albright discussed how
her parents instilled in her a deep love for the United States and the
ideals upon which our Nation was founded. Others have noted Ambassador
Albright's strong views on such questions as human rights, democracy,
and individual liberty. I have no doubt that her family's experiences
have contributed to her evident devotion to these very American ideals.
If confirmed by the Senate, Ambassador Albright will become Secretary
Albright and will move to a larger stage for the conduct of American
foreign policy. Under the Clinton administration, the United States has
been searching for a more unified vision and greater consistency in our
Nation's foreign policy with the end of the cold war. A number of
challenges will immediately confront her, and I hope and expect that
she will be able to rise to these challenges.
For example, the international community is watching the rising world
power of China, but for 4 years the Clinton administration has had
difficulty maintaining a consistent foreign policy in relation to this
increasingly important country. Tension between the important bilateral
interests of human rights, trade, national security, and
nonproliferation has too often led to confusion and vacillation in our
Nation's policies. It is my hope that Madeleine Albright will rectify
this weakness by bringing her temperament of toughness and consistency,
combined with her strong grounding in long-term strategic thinking.
Another challenge awaits U.S. policy in the critically important
region of the Middle East. There is no doubt that recent negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been difficult,
though thankfully last week's agreement over the redeployment of
Israeli forces in Hebron shows that the peace process remains intact.
But over the next 2 years, the negotiations will become even more
important and vastly more challenging. It is in this period that
negotiations over a final status for the Palestinian entity are
supposed to be reached, and the Palestinians' challenge against Israeli
sovereignty over Jerusalem must be resolved. Ambassador Albright has
long been acknowledged as a very strong friend of Israel. But she also
has developed a very constructive working relationship with the
Palestinian authority. In the world of international diplomacy, it is
worth noting that two of the earliest congratulations she received for
her nomination came from Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy and
Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Yassir Arafat.
Mr. President, I have had the honor and the privilege to become
personally acquainted with Ambassador Albright over the past 4 years
from my position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the
104th Congress, and as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee during the 103d Congress. While we have occasionally
disagreed on policy issues, I have always found Ambassador Albright to
be a forceful, effective, and persuasive advocate of administration
policies. She has a true skill for explaining the purpose behind
American foreign policy, and I am certain that she will use that skill
to advance U.S. interests throughout the world.
I would like to again express my support for confirming Ambassador
Madeleine Albright to be the 63d Secretary of State. I urge my
colleagues to join with me in approving her nomination for this highest
of all confirmable executive branch posts.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, while many of my colleagues have already
addressed vital foreign policy issues during the consideration of
Madeleine Albright to be the next Secretary of State, I would like to
use this opportunity to address some equally vital management issues. I
hope to use the confirmation process to elevate management issues that
tend to get swept under the carpet during high-minded policy debates.
When discussing policy goals, we must be careful to determine whether
these goals are affordable and that the resources spent provide the
best value for the taxpayers' investment.
Congress has laid the groundwork for significant Government
management reforms with the passage of laws such as the Government
Performance and Results Act, which requires agencies to measure the
results of their efforts, the Chief Financial Officers Act, which
requires agencies to shore up their financial recordkeeping, and
recently enacted information management and procurement reforms. These
laws apply commonsense approaches to the business of government to
reduce inefficiencies and get real cost savings for taxpayers. It is
questionable whether these new laws will be taken seriously and fully
implemented without extensive congressional oversight--there are
reports that agencies do not believe Congress is serious about the
effective implementation of these laws. I am hereby serving notice that
they would be seriously mistaken in that belief.
The State Department, which Ambassador Albright will head, has served
this country admirably since its founding in 1789. But I wonder if
Thomas Jefferson, the first Secretary of State, could have imagined
that the Department would grow to a staff of approximately 24,500 with
a departmental budget of about $3.9 billion, part of an even larger
$19.2 billion international affairs budget. Maintaining the
infrastructure necessary to support 160 embassies and 100 consulates
worldwide, costs this nation over $2 billion a year. The Department
buys over $500 million in goods and services each year and is
responsible for $12 billion in property. Effectively managing these
resources would be a daunting challenge for any Fortune 500 company,
but the State Department must do it at the same time that it is
carrying out its primary functions--performing its diplomatic and
foreign policy missions, protecting and assisting American citizens
traveling abroad, and providing the interagency coordination necessary
for conducting foreign policy in an increasingly complex and dangerous
world.
With a multitude of difficult missions to perform, management
problems risk being ignored due to the exigencies of the day. The new
Secretary will no doubt be consumed by critical foreign policy issues
and crises from Bosnia to Korea that will demand a great deal of her
personal attention. However, determining whether taxpayers are getting
the best value for their multibillion dollar international affairs
investment also must be one of the Secretary's highest priorities.
In times of fiscal austerity, we all have to do more with less. I do
not advocate performing critical missions ``on the cheap,'' but we must
strive for the most efficient and effective use of our limited
resources. The Government Performance and Results Act, for example, can
be an effective tool to make Government work better by measuring the
success or failure of Government programs and using this information to
support budget decisions.
The effects of belt tightening are painful as is illustrated by the
$300 million backlog in deferred maintenance, obsolete technology and
shrinking base of skilled personnel at the Department of State. The
Congress will no doubt be asked to provide more resources to State and
in the international affairs budget to counteract some of these
negative effects. On first glance, this seemingly makes sense. However,
the spending for State Department operating expenses has increased in
both actual and constant dollars since 1985. Therefore, I question
whether the Department has done all it can. Has it cut to the bone and
ignored the fat in order to generate a compelling case before Congress
for more money? I have to say that I don't know, and we will not know
the true story from the Department anytime soon because the detailed
supporting financial information does not exist.
This is because the State Department does not have adequate financial
and information systems to effectively manage and prioritize its
programs. In the information age, the Government is increasingly
dependent on good information--and yet this is what we are
[[Page S613]]
lacking. We need adequate information upon which to base sound
decisions, otherwise we are making decisions in a vacuum. A good first
step in developing this information would be for the Department to meet
its responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act and prepare
an audited financial statement.
Good financial data relies upon the development of effective computer
systems. Government computers are crucial to the State Department's
ability to meets its foreign policy missions and business needs. In
recent years, the Department has obligated over $300 million annually
on computer systems. Yet, the State Department has had a poor history
of managing these systems and, as a result, is struggling with aging
computers that do not adequately meet the Department's needs. This has
resulted in critical information shortfalls, as well as interruption of
operations. Obviously, the Department needs to do a better job.
Legislation Congress passed last year to establish a Chief Information
Officer at the Department of State should help in focusing attention on
this longstanding problem.
The Department has yet to change its business practices to reflect
the new information age. In September 1994, the State Department
launched a Strategic Management Initiative to identify its highest
priority functions and products, as well as activities which were no
longer necessary. However, GAO states that the State Department ``has
been reluctant or unable to significantly reduce its overseas presence
and the scope of its activities or to substantially change its business
practices.'' I would hope in the future that the Department will not
continue to conduct business as usual and then complain it does not
have the resources to fulfill its mission.
The State Department, like many other Federal agencies, is confronted
by serious management problems that impede its ability to carry out its
mission efficiently and effectively. GAO and inspector general reports
have shown that in the past, top level attention has not been given to
the stewardship of taxpayer resources. I am encouraged by Ambassador
Albright's answers to my questions during her confirmation process. She
assured us that she will be very much a hands-on manager and recognizes
that the ability to conduct quality foreign policy depends upon
attacking directly these management issues. Ambassador Albright stated
at her confirmation hearing that she would work with Congress ``to
ensure that the American public gets full value for each tax dollar
spent'' and that she ``is committed to making improvements in the
Department's structure and operations that will produce a more
efficient and effective use of our resources.'' I am hopeful that
Ambassador Albright will provide the leadership necessary for the State
Department to meet its management challenges of the next century. I
look forward to working with her to achieve those objectives in the
coming Congress and to effectively implement the bipartisan management
reforms passed by Congress.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate votes to confirm the
nomination of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State.
As many others will say today, this is a historic occasion, as the
secretary-designate will soon become the highest ranking woman ever to
serve in the United States Government. As a member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, it was my distinct honor to approve her nomination
at the committee level on Monday. And I am honored to vote for her
again today on the floor of the Senate.
Back in the 1980's, I had the pleasure of meeting the distinguished
nominee in Wausau, in my home state of Wisconsin, while I was a member
of the Wisconsin State Senate. At the time, I was introduced to her as
the future Secretary of State. I have since been impressed at how she
has excelled--in domestic politics, as well as in foreign policy--to
allow her to achieve this great honor, the nomination to be the
President's chief foreign policy adviser.
In more recent days, I have observed her both in private, and at her
confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee on January
8 of this year. And I was again impressed at how articulately and
gracefully she responded to questions that literally spanned the globe.
Upon confirmation, Ambassador Albright will take on a position that,
in my view, is one of the most challenging positions in public service.
On the one hand, she will have a tremendous opportunity to affect world
events because of the leadership role that the United States plays in
so many conflicts around the world. But on the other hand, she will
have awesome responsibilities.
Just a quick glance at the range and scope of the various bureaus at
the State Department remind us that the job of Secretary of State is
far-reaching. Not only will she be in charge of all the regional and
administrative bureaus, but she will also be responsible for the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the Bureau for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Bureau for International
Organization Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Scientific
Affairs and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
This list underscores the fact that many of the problems that
challenge us today are ones that belie traditional ways of looking at
the world through regional, or even strictly political, lenses.
Increasingly, we are faced with issues that transcend national borders
and fly in the face of old political alliances. Concerns over drug
trafficking, refugees, disease, and the environment have changed the
way we define the national interest.
Of particular interest to me is the promotion of human rights
worldwide. I strongly believe that the United States has a moral
responsibility to put human rights at the top of our foreign policy
agenda. I also believe that--although we might disagree on the manner
in which we should raise human rights concerns with other governments--
Ambassador Albright agrees with my basic premise here. In my view, it
is incumbent upon U.S. diplomats to incorporate our views about human
rights in bilateral discussions on other issues. For example, we have
many interests in Indonesia, but we must never forget that its
government continues to sustain a brutal military occupation of East
Timor. Similarly, concerns over human rights abuses in Tibet and over
the impending transition in Hong Kong must be pillars of our many-
pronged China policy.
Ambassador Albright has, in the past, exhibited superior knowledge of
human rights issues and of these other transnational problems. And, I
hope she will guide the Administration to propose creative solutions to
some of these problems.
Of particular regional concern to me is the African continent,
which--too often--is left at the end of the priority lists of
policymakers in this country. But Africa--a continent of 48 countries
south of the Sahara--supports a population of nearly 620 million
people. Its land mass stretches over one quarter of the Earth's
surface.
While we often focus upon areas where crises evolve, as in Liberia or
in the Great Lakes region, we also must actively support some of the
successes in Africa, such as the stunning transition to majority rule
in South Africa, Eritrean independence, or the fact that more than 30
democratic elections have taken place on the continent since 1989. The
United States can play an important role in all these events.
Finally, I wish to note that in addition to Ambassador Albright's
many qualifications in the field of foreign policy, she also is
especially prepared to work with Members of Congress. She spent nearly
2 years as the chief legislative assistant to Senator Edmund Muskie,
who himself went on to be Secretary of State. She understands well the
intent of the Constitution regarding the separate responsibilities and
prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches of our
Government. This is of particular concern to me where the deployment of
American men and women to combat is involved. I trust Ambassador
Albright will take the advice and consent role of the Senate seriously,
and will consult fully with the Congress in all matters of troop
deployment.
Ambassador Albright never shied away from speaking frankly with us
and with the American people in her previous capacity as the U.S.
permanent representative to the United Nations. I look forward to
future open and candid dialog with her on all of these
[[Page S614]]
issues, and expect to work closely with her.
Mr. President, the job of Secretary of State is indeed a challenging
one. I salute President Clinton for his superb choice, for it is my
view that this nominee is more-than-qualified to take on the challenges
of the position under consideration.
I also commend the honorable Senator from North Carolina for
expediting the confirmation process.
In summary, Mr. President, I am honored to cast my vote in favor of
the nomination of Madeleine Korbel Albright to be Secretary of State.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am honored today to express my strong
support for Madeleine Albright's nomination to be the next U.S.
Secretary of State. Long after I leave the United States Senate, I will
recall fondly the day I voted to confirm Madeleine Albright as
Secretary of State; our 63d and first female Secretary of State.
Madeleine Albright is a spectacular nominee; I've worked closely with
her since I came to the Senate, particularly on the 1995 United Nations
Conference on Women. I do speak personally of the great respect she's
earned from many on Capitol Hill. And I know that same respect has been
earned in Capitals around the globe throughout her distinguished
career. There will be no on-the-job training for this public servant.
In recent times, no Secretary of State has assumed the post with the
breadth of experience and bipartisan support that Madeleine Albright
will bring to the State Department.
Secretary of State is an enormously important job. One of Secretary
Warren Christopher's final public statements underscores the importance
of the job performed by the Secretary and the American citizens who
work at the State Department and in postings around the world.
Secretary Christopher, describing his tenure and accomplishments, said,
``Russia's democracy was in crisis; its economy was near collapse. The
nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union was scattered among four new
countries with few safeguards. The war in Bosnia was at the peak of its
brutality and threatening to spread. North Korea was developing nuclear
weapons. The Middle East peace process was stalemated; negotiations
were stymied. Repression in Haiti was pushing refugees to our shores.
NAFTA's passage was in serious doubt.'' Certainly, Secretary
Christopher's tenure was marked by many other difficult issues that met
varying degrees of success. My point is to use Secretary Christopher's
words to emphasize the enormity and the importance of the task ahead
for Madeleine Albright.
Madeleine Albright will confront a similar list of issues important
to our future economic and security interests. China and Asia as a
whole have moved to the forefront and many have written that the
President will make this important region of the world a ``legacy
issue'' for his second term. I certainly support an activist U.S. role
in Asia; from the Russian Far East which is increasingly linked to my
State of Washington to South Asia where the threat of nuclear
escalation will require careful diplomacy. Hong Kong is on the verge of
a return to Chinese sovereignty, and numerous territorial disputes
throughout Asia threaten to become military flashpoints. The United
States is and must continue to be the stabilizing force in Asia that
fosters peace and our economic growth in the region. Numerous regional
groupings from APEC to the ASEAN Regional Forum will require U.S.
leadership and vigilance. This region, with more than one-half of the
world's population, must be a priority of the new Secretary. And I am
sure Madeleine Albright will represent the ideals we cherish; the
ideals we share with the world through an activist, engaged foreign
policy.
Europe and the former Soviet states must also remain a priority
issue. NATO expansion will be difficult. And international trade issues
with the European Community will continue to be difficult as we seek to
gain greater market access, end subsidized competition in manufacturing
and agriculture, and continue to press for protection of U.S.
intellectual property rights. Madeleine Albright, an immigrant from
Prague, is uniquely qualified to represent U.S. interests in this
region of mature and growing political and economic relationships.
Latin America is finally emerging from the throes of the cold war. El
Salvador and Guatemala are continuing on important paths to peace and
reconciliation. Virtually every Latin American country is now under
some form of democracy; the United States must continue to foster this
democratic development and reconciliation. NAFTA expansion to Chile and
beyond will require a respected leader to negotiate agreements
beneficial to the United States and to educate and understand the
concerns of a skeptical public. Again, I believe Madeleine Albright
will do a fabulous job for the American people in this region of the
world.
Problems in Africa continue to go largely unnoticed in our country.
Children throughout the world continue to suffer the evils of disease
and malnutrition. Radical changes may come to Cuba and North Korea in
the near future. All of these issues, and many more unforseen events,
will require a person like Madeleine Albright.
Finally, following her confirmation, I want to urge the new Secretary
to be a voice for the State Department and its family of employees,
many of whom are scattered around the world in service to our country.
I find it refreshing that Ambassador Albright during her confirmation
hearing freely talked about the difficulties of conducting foreign
relations, on the cheap.
As a member of the Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I
look forward to working closely with Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of Madeleine Albright's
nomination to take the helm of the U.S. Department of State. I believe
she is well qualified and has displayed a unique steadiness and
pragmatism during her tenure as our Ambassador to the United Nations.
From her difficult beginnings and throughout her life, she has proudly
embraced this country. She has served America with dignity and
patriotism. In her new position, I hope she will continue to sensibly
promote our Nation's best interests.
All of these qualities are attested to by a very dear friend of mine,
Edward Gnehm, our former Ambassador to Kuwait. He now serves as Deputy
Assistant Ambassador under Madeleine Albright at the United Nations. I
met Skip Gnehm in 1962, when we began 4 good years together at the
George Washington University. I have always valued Skip's friendship
and his insight--particularly in matters of foreign affairs.
Skip and I have recently discussed the changing role of the United
States in global politics. We agree that, as a nation, we live in a
rapidly changing part of the 20th century. World politics is no longer
dominated by the tense United States-Soviet detente that defined United
States foreign policy for so many years. Gone is our old familiar
enemy, the Russian bear, growling on the horizon. But we have also lost
the political stability Soviet hegemony provided in the region. No one
here would argue for the return of a Communist-controlled Soviet
empire, but in the wake of glasnost, we are left with a political
minefield that demands careful attention.
Our foreign relations are more fragile than ever and demand
increasing precision. The State Department, our eyes and ears abroad,
is our country's first line of defense. Without an effective and
supported foreign service, we will have little capability in combating
today's imminent threats to American lives. Dangers such as
international terrorism and nuclear proliferation among rogue nations
truly pose a greater threat to our national security than Russia ever
did.
In light of these facts, I am discouraged by the increasing trend
toward isolationism. We cannot turn our eyes inward and ignore the
problems of our neighbors. Like it or not, our world is interconnected,
interdependent, and international. Today, we send e-mail on the
internet across the globe with the push of a button. A phone call can
bridge thousands of miles between family and friends. Businesses move
money electronically across borders in the blink of an eye. A drought
in Kansas can raise the price of bread in Moscow. It is true that
domestic peace and prosperity in America are important, but you can't
sustain peace and prosperity on an island in a global sea of discord.
So, I am using this opportunity to speak in support of Madeleine
[[Page S615]]
Albright's nomination, but also to voice my concern about the lack of
direction and coordination in our foreign policy. We need to identify
our goals and be very clear in our message. As the world's only
superpower, we cannot stand around watching--simply reacting to random
global events.
I believe Ambassador Albright has demonstrated her exceptional
abilities as a diplomat and in offering thoughtful counsel to our
President. I would now encourage her to utilize her proven diplomatic
skills and her new high-profile job to bring some change in the
President's Cabinet room. We need to introduce strategic planning into
our foreign policy and she is the person to do it. With well-defined
goals, a properly managed administration and a little enthusiasm, our
State Department and Foreign Service could again receive the respect
they deserve--both at home and abroad.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] asked me to submit his statement in support of Madeleine
Albright for Secretary of State. He is necessarily absent for the vote
today because of responsibilities he has in leading a trade mission
from his State of West Virginia to Asia. He regrets not being here to
cast his own vote for Ms. Albright, and asks that his enthusiastic
support for this outstanding individual be noted.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am submitting this statement
to express my strongest support for the nomination of Madeleine Korbel
Albright to be the Secretary of State of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, I am necessarily absent from the Senate, and am unable
to cast my vote for Ms. Albright. Because of plans that had to be
scheduled long ago, I am presently leading a group of more than 30 West
Virginians on a trade mission to Japan and Taiwan that is called
Project Harvest II.
This trade mission, the second I have led to Asia, is vitally
important to the long-term economic vitality of my State. Since the
first Project Harvest Trade mission in 1995, tens of millions of
dollars in contracts, and many new jobs have flowed back to West
Virginia. That first trip also served as a key step in bringing
companies like Sino-Swearingen and Toyota to West Virginia--
international investments that have changed the face of West Virginia's
manufacturing profile.
The globalization of the economy is the greatest force shaping
international relations in the last years of the millennium, and the
kinds of relationships that West Virginia is developing around the
world are a key unifying factor in this new world order. Trade missions
like Project Harvest can be an extension of America's international
interest in fostering peace, stability, and prosperity across the
globe.
I personally regret, however, that I am missing a chance to vote on
the nomination of Madeleine Albright. Mr. President, I don't think
President Clinton could have made a wiser choice in selecting Madeleine
Albright for this central post in his administration. I have known
Madeleine Albright for many years, and have rarely seen such a
combination of intelligence, skill, experience, principle, values, and,
Mr. President, patriotism, in all my days.
Madeleine Albright brings all these things to the service of her
adopted nation. A daughter of Central European strife, she has a unique
world view that brings into clear focus some of the most difficult and
compelling challenges we face as the world's last true military and
economic superpower.
Of course the world today is a remarkably different place than the
one we faced 50 years ago, 15 years ago, and even 5 years ago. I am
further struck by the fact that we are defining this time by what it is
not, that is the cold war--rather than by what it is--a transition time
in the world's history where one historic power, Europe, is struggling
to define itself; and another, China, is struggling to assert its place
in the world. It is into this breach that Madeleine Albright has been
tasked to define and promote America's global interests.
Traditionally, American foreign policy has had Europe and the
Atlantic as its focal point. While we must continue making Europe a
priority, we also see Asia growing in importance in economic, military,
and other terms. This means that geographically, strategically, and
economically, the United States sits astride both worlds.
Because of my own long-time involvement in United States-Japan
relations and Asia issues generally, I want to voice my confidence that
Secretary of State Albright will provide the needed leadership,
insight, and attention to the Pacific region in her role as the Clinton
Administration's chief of international diplomacy and as a key part of
his national security team. She understands the challenges we face
together as Pacific neighbors; she appreciates the differences and
complexities that are presented; and she will be a clear and forceful
advocate for America's peaceable interests and the goals we share with
our allies and the people of nations worldwide.
Mr. President, I believe that Madeleine Albright is a superb choice
for Secretary of State. I ask her forgiveness that I am unable to stand
and vote for her today, and I pledge to work with her in every way
possible.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to support the nomination of
Madeleine K. Albright for Secretary of State. Ambassador Albright is
extremely well-qualified for this important post and will make a
tremendous leader of the Clinton administration's foreign policy team.
This nomination is truly historic. Ambassador Albright is the first
woman ever nominated to be Secretary of State. She will not only become
the most senior female appointee in this administration, but the
highest ranking in the history of the United States. I am so very proud
that today Madeleine Albright is shattering a glass ceiling that many
thought would never be broken.
Ambassador Albright will also be the first refugee to hold this
important post. Having fled totalitarianism herself, Ambassador
Albright is especially sensitive to the needs of newly emerging
democracies. She is a beacon of hope to the hundreds of millions of
people around the world who have recently shed the shackles of
authoritarian government.
Over the last 20 years, Ambassador Albright has worked tirelessly to
promote a safer, more stable world. After working as a foreign policy
advisor to the late Senator Edmund Muskie, she taught foreign policy at
Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. As U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations, she earned a reputation for toughness, fairness,
and the tireless advocacy of American interests.
Madeleine Albright is a diplomat, scholar, and a role model for the
Nation's young people--especially our young women. I am confident that
she will make an excellent Secretary of State and I proudly support her
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who seeks recognition? Who yields
time?
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Could I ask for a minute and a half?
Mr. HELMS. If you want, more than that.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for a
minute and a half--5 minutes. The Senator from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend first the distinguished chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee for the manner in which he expedited
the hearing on this very important, most senior of our Cabinet
positions.
Also, I wish to commend the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. Our committee just completed its hearing on Senator
Cohen, and we anticipate that today the Senate is likely to turn to
that nomination also for a vote.
So that under the leadership of the majority leader, with the
cooperation of the distinguished Democratic leader and the chairmen, we
have, I think in record time, accomplished the very careful and
thorough screening of two Cabinet posts and providing the President
with that advice which he needs.
I have had the privilege of knowing the distinguished Ambassador, the
nominee for the post of Secretary of State, for many years. Ambassador
[[Page S616]]
Albright has come before the Senate Armed Services Committee, over the
18 years I have been privileged to serve on that committee, on a number
of occasions as an expert witness, which is a difficult role to carry
out. But she has always done it in a very careful and well-informed
manner. Early on, she gained the respect and admiration of both sides
on our committee, as she worked her way up through a number of
important posts before going to the United Nations as our Ambassador.
And now I think the President is to be commended in selecting her for
this assignment, which I anticipate she will discharge with equal if
not greater wisdom and skill than her previous assignments.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest we let a quorum call be charged
equally.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just a moment?
Mr. HELMS. Certainly. Certainly.
Mr. STEVENS. Is there time left, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has 19
minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Are we going to vote, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope we will agree to vote as quickly
as possible, but I do want to say that I welcome this nomination.
Madeleine Albright at the United Nations as our Ambassador helped to
make the world realize how important it is we conserve the oceans. She
assisted in many ways with those of us who are trying to really protect
the oceans. I welcome her coming to the Department of State now where I
think she can carry on the same fight and help us really deal with the
overwhelming problem of assuring that the oceans of the world continue
to produce the food that mankind needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no time is yielded, time
will be charged to both sides.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are prepared to complete the
debate on the nominee to be Secretary of State.
I commend the committee members for the way they have handled this
matter. Obviously, it was expeditious and a very pleasant experience. I
thank the chairman for the way he has handled it. If he says the
nominee is OK, that is very powerful in this institution. I thank the
Senator from Delaware for his efforts also.
Mr. President, today is a historic day for the Senate, for the
Department of State, and for the United States. Today, we will confirm
America's 63d Secretary of State. Madeline Albright will be the first
woman to hold our country's highest diplomatic post.
Most of our Members are aware of Ambassador Albright' compelling
personal history. As a child, she was forced to flee her native
Czechoslovakia from the century's two great tyrannies: Nazi Germany and
Soviet Communism. First-hand, she learned that freedom is not free, and
that resistance to aggression is imperative.
Ambassador Albright is an American by choice. She has served her
adopted land with distinction--at the National Security Council in the
Carter administration, in politics and in the academic world, and most
recently as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
When I met with Ambassador Albright last week, we had a good
discussion about a range of issues. I expressed my concern over the
gradual decline of the role of Congress in foreign policy--at least
that is the way Congress is sometimes treated by administrations--a
trend that is not in keeping with my reading of what the framers of the
Constitution intended.
Ambassador Albright told me she taught a course on ``Congress and
Foreign Policy'' and that she very much understands and respects the
role of the Congress in our power of the purse, our sole power to
declare war, and the Senate's co-equal role in treaty making.
As secretary of State, Ambassador Albright will face many difficult
issues. Perhaps her greatest challenge will be articulating a vision of
America's role in the post-cold-war era--a vision that is readily
understood and supported by the American people and their elected
representatives.
Our leadership role in the world depends on the power of our ideals
and the purpose to defend our interests. And it depends on the support
of our citizens for a leadership role. I believe the American people
know America must remain engaged in the world, and that they will be
willing to support our engagement because it is ultimately to the
benefit of each and every American.
In just the coming months, Ambassador Albright will have a very full
agenda--on Capitol Hill and around the world. There are continued
concerns about Russia's future, the threats posed by rogue regimes from
Iran and Iraq to Libya and North Korea, the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international crime, and narcotics trafficking,
the United States relationship with Asia's emerging giant--China,
pursuit of a lasting and secure peace in the Middle East, and serious
attention to the problems and potential of our own hemisphere.
Each of these will demand a very experienced and committed Secretary
of State. The Ambassador's skills and wisdom will be challenged every
day.
Secretary Albright, assuming she is going to be confirmed here
momentarily, will also need to spend much more time with the Congress.
We have pledged to do what we can to move America ahead in a
nonpartisan or bipartisan fashion. We will try to work together on arms
control issues. We expect the administration to respect the Senate's
role in providing advice and consent to the significant modifications
they propose to the 1972 ABM Treaty.
The administration has tried to make a case for more money for the
United Nations and for international affairs spending in general. I do
not believe in measuring American leadership by how many taxpayer
dollars we send to the United Nations or to AID contractors--especially
when our defense and intelligence capabilities have felt the impact of
far more severe budget limitations.
We are also awaiting the administration's request for funding their
decision to extend the American troop presence despite the promise of a
1-year only deployment in Bosnia. On all budget issues, we will try to
work together on funding the administration's priorities and our
priorities in a manner consistent with the move toward a balanced
budget.
I expect to work closely with Secretary Albright to prepare the
Senate and the American people for the historic expansion of the most
successful alliance in history--NATO. We will work to support the
historic progress toward peace in the Middle East, made possible
because the enemies of Israel know that American support for our
democratic ally is unswerving.
Today, with what I expect will be an overwhelming vote, the Senate
will confirm Madeline Albright as Secretary of State. The confirmation
process moved rapidly and cooperatively, and I think it is indicative
of what we can do in the months and years ahead.
I want to offer my congratulations to Secretary-to-be Albright, her
family and her friends on this historic occasion. I believe President
Clinton made a sound choice, and I believe Secretary Albright will
serve America honorably.
With that, Mr. President, I have been asked to yield back time on
both sides. I believe we are prepared to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Madeleine
Korbel Albright, of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of State?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
[[Page S617]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 1 Ex.]
YEAS--99
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith Bob
Smith Gordon H
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Rockefeller
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________