[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.

                          ____________________