[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4911-S4914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENHANCING OUR DIPLOMATIC READINESS--A CRITICAL TEST OF AMERICAN 
                               LEADERSHIP

   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week a bipartisan budget 
agreement was successfully reached between the Administration and 
Congressional leaders of both parties.
  This is a seminal achievement that will lead us to a balanced budget 
for the first time in 28 years.
  I would like to congratulate the budget negotiators on this important 
accomplishment.
  I would like to call particular attention to their leadership in 
funding international affairs.
  In February, I wrote the Budget Committee asking that the President's 
budget request of $19.45 billion for international affairs spending be 
regarded as the absolute minimum essential to effectively carry out the 
national interests of the United States.
  Yesterday, the Budget Committee reported a resolution establishing 
these enhanced levels of funding as a priority for fiscal year 1998.
  I commend the Budget Committee for recognizing the importance of 
funding this year the full amount of the President's request for 
foreign affairs.
  This was an important first step.
  I look forward to continue working with Chairman Helms on the Foreign 
Relations Committee and with the Appropriations Committee to insure 
that sufficient funds are authorized and appropriated to restore our 
resources for diplomatic readiness abroad.
  But it was only the first step. In recent years, funding for 
international affairs has plummeted in real terms to its lowest level 
since World War II.
  Yet all the while, due to the downsizing of U.S. overseas military 
forces, diplomacy has become more important than ever as a vital front-
line defense of American interests.
  Although the cold war has ended, challenges to our security remain.
  We live in an age in which international threats such as terrorism, 
narcotics trafficking, and nuclear proliferation continue to imperil 
our Nation's security and prosperity.
  American diplomats in the field and on the ground are essential to 
understanding complex political and economic forces affecting our 
allies and adversaries alike.
  Despite the reduction in our military readiness abroad, the increased 
importance of diplomatic readiness to our Nation's security has not 
been reflected in the Federal budget in recent years.
  To the contrary, international affairs funding has suffered drastic 
budget cuts, a point which I will demonstrate today. These cuts have 
already begun to have noticeable effects on our Nation's diplomatic 
readiness.
  Thus, this year's budget agreement must be seen as only the first 
step toward restoring and enhancing America's diplomatic preparedness.
  Before discussing the decline in resources for foreign affairs, it is 
worth pausing to address a threshold question: What kind of foreign 
policy do we want to have?
  Stated more bluntly--are we prepared to remain engaged in the world, 
or are we headed down the path of isolationism?
  For it is only after we answer this fundamental question should we 
make decisions about the budgetary resources for foreign affairs.
  Mr. President, how we fund our diplomatic resources abroad presents 
another test for American leadership--whether the growing forces of 
neoisolationism or those favoring engagement are going to prevail in 
this congress.
  It is commonly asserted these days that the American people are weary 
of international involvement, and want us to cut back from our 
commitments abroad.
  Over the course of the last 50 years we have seen an enormous 
technological revolution take place in the areas of information, 
communication, transportation, medicine, manufacturing, and world 
trade.
  For better or worse, this revolution--at least for large segments of 
the world--has fundamentally transformed the way we live.
  Within and among nations, people today are more closely connected 
than ever by fast and affordable travel, instant electronic 
communication, and standardized products.
  For americans, who for much of our history enjoyed a sense of 
separateness from the world, global interdependence is no longer an 
academic abstraction; we experience it daily. The lesson of the two 
world wars in this century--that we cannot preserve our own well-being 
in isolation from the world's problems--has now been compounded by 
technology.

  For the last 50 years, the major threat to our Nation's security was 
the global spread of communism. Today, a host of other threats--no less 
dangerous--to our future security and prosperity exist: the 
proliferation of dangerous weapons; the threat of terrorism, narcotics, 
and international crime; the spread of deadly diseases; the degradation 
of the environment; and increasing economic competition.
  On every continent, we face many challenges, new and old:
  In Europe, we work to reinvigorate the NATO alliance by engaging in 
new missions and expanding to the east;

[[Page S4912]]

  In Eurasia, we seek to build a constructive relationship with a newly 
democratic Russia still armed with thousands of nuclear weapons, and to 
nourish democracy there and elsewhere in the New Independent States;
  In the Middle East, we endeavor to sustain a peace process that has 
brought Israel and her neighbors within sight of a final agreement that 
could end decades of conflict;
  In Asia, we seek to strengthen the bonds of cooperation with old 
allies in Japan and Korea, and to build a cooperative relationship with 
a growing economic and military power in China;
  In Latin America, we seek to sustain and strengthen our ties to the 
new democracies which are enjoying unprecedented economic success, and 
to help them contain the threat of the narcotics trade;
  In Africa, we are helping the new South Africa take its rightful 
place as a leader of the world community, and we seek to encourage the 
spread of democracy across the continent, where the seeds of freedom 
and free markets are slowly taking root.
  These multiple challenges may not call for a single construct--as the 
challenge of communism yielded the policy of containment--but they 
clearly affect American interests, and cry out for active American 
leadership.
  I believe that the American people understand this reality; and 
precisely for that reason, they expect to see the strong hand of the 
United States in world affairs.
  It is often stated, sometimes with excessive triumphalism, that we 
are the world's lone remaining superpower. Unfortunately, when it comes 
to devoting adequate resources for our diplomatic efforts, we rarely 
act the part.
  Indeed, our ability to continue our leadership role is threatened by 
the severe decline in funding for international affairs.
  And although some members of this body may contest the need for such 
funding, there can be no dispute that spending for international 
affairs has fallen significantly in recent years.
  Allow me to elaborate. In budgetary terms, nearly all funding for 
international affairs programs are found in the category known as 
function 150. In this category are all major foreign affairs 
activities: diplomacy conducted by the Department of State, foreign aid 
administered by the Agency for International Development; information 
and exchange activities carried out by the U.S. Information Agency; The 
work of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; U.S. contributions to 
international financial institutions such as the World Bank; and 
support for the United Nations and related agencies ranging from the 
International Atomic Energy Agency to the Children's Fund.
  By every measure, spending for these activities has been cut to the 
bone in the last few years.
  According to a study of the Congressional Research Service prepared 
at my request, foreign policy spending is now at its lowest level in 20 
years.
  Stated in fiscal 1998 dollars, the budget in the current fiscal year 
is $18.77 billion, which is 25 percent below the annual average of $25 
billion over the past two decades, and 30 percent below the level of 10 
years ago, near the end of the Reagan administration.
  This is a recent phenomenon. The decline commenced at the beginning 
of the decade. But the most significant reductions came in the past few 
years.
  Spending dropped by 3.8 percent in fiscal 1994, by 5.6 percent in 
fiscal 1995, by 10.2 percent in fiscal 1996, and finally by 3.7 percent 
in fiscal 1997. In short, the reductions in this decade began with a 
trickle and have turned into a hemorrhage.
  Taken together, let me repeat, these budget cuts brought spending in 
1997 to the lowest level in the past 20 years, and a full 25 percent 
below the average for that period.
  These reductions are also historic in two other respects. For the 
past two decades, international affairs spending, as measured against 
the rest of the discretionary budget, held reasonably steady. The 
average was 4.1 percent, but it rarely deviated much from that average.
  In fact, the trend, from 1987 to 1995, was virtually a straight line. 
But then the line started to take a dive in 1996, dropping to 3.7 
percent; and in 1997, it fell still further to 3.6 percent.
  The story is largely the same when foreign affairs funding is 
compared to the total budget, including mandatory spending programs.
  Over the past two decades, international affairs funding comprised, 
on average, 1.7 percent of the entire Federal budget. In fiscal 1997, 
such funding was just 1.1 percent of the Federal budget, the lowest 
level in the past 20 years and about one-third below the historical 
average.
  It should be pointed out here that I am not using fiscal year 1985 as 
a base year for comparison. That was an extraordinary year because 
there were two special supplemental appropriations to meet foreign 
policy crises: a special aid package for the Middle East, and a relief 
bill for famine in Africa.
  Spending that year, in constant fiscal 1998 dollars, was $36.3 
billion, or nearly twice current funding.
  I recognize that such an anomalous year would skew the comparison, 
and instead I have chosen to look at current funding based against a 
20-year time period.
  This period, I might add, embraces the tenure of both Presidents 
Carter and Clinton--that is, the two most recent Democratic 
administrations--as well as those of Presidents Reagan and Bush.
  In sum, Mr. President, the data do not lie. No matter how you slice 
it, spending for foreign affairs has been severely cut.
  There's another part of the story that needs to be told, however, and 
that's how these cuts in international affairs spending, on both 
programs and people, have impacted American interests.
  Let us start with the State Department. Since President Clinton 
assumed office, funding for the Department's core activities has fallen 
by 17 percent in real terms.
  Although the current level is slightly higher than the historical 
average of the past 20 years, the cuts in the last few years have had a 
dramatic effect on the Department.
  First, we have closed 36 missions overseas, in locations such as 
Zurich, Switzerland, Stuttgart, Germany, and Lubumbashi, Zaire.
  At the same time, 24 new posts have been opened, 15 of which are in 
the nations that once comprised the Soviet empire. We now have 249 
overseas posts, the lowest level since 1980.
  Now, I am not objecting to cuts made in the interest of efficiency. I 
agree that we should eliminate duplication and waste.
  What I am concerned about, however, is whether these reductions may 
have left our interests unevenly protected overseas.
  Just as one example, the closing last year of the American Consulate 
in Medan, Indonesia, has left us with no American diplomatic presence 
in the second most important commercial center in that country.
  Unlike Britain, Russia, Japan, Germany, and a host of other countries 
which all have diplomats in Medan, our presence is limited to the 
American Embassy some 800 miles away in Jakarta.
  Medan is located in a part of Indonesia that is a key entry-way for 
arms smuggling into the country, and historically has been a hotbed of 
pro-independence political activity. Moreover, there are significant 
private American economic interests in Medan. However, instead of 
protecting our interests in the region--both economic and security--we 
have been reduced to sending someone from the Embassy up to Medan about 
once every 4 months.
  Second, the Department is suffering from what might be called an 
infrastructure deficit. Replacement and modernization of basic 
equipment has been long deferred, and renovation and repair of overseas 
buildings has been delayed. Let me state it at the most basic level: 
Many diplomats, both here and abroad, still use Wang computers. When 
purchased in the early 1980's, the Wang was state-of-the-art, and the 
State Department was the envy of the Federal Government; today, the 
obsolete computers that pervade the Department make it the laughing-
stock of Washington. Similarly, over 40 percent of the Department's 
overseas telephone switchboards are obsolete, so old in fact, that 
spare parts are unavailable, and to keep the older systems working, we 
cannibalize ones that have

[[Page S4913]]

been replaced to fix those still in operation. The same is true for 
over 80 percent of all our radio equipment overseas.
  In the same vein, thousands of repairs to embassies and other 
facilities remain unmet because of the lack of funds. Our embassy in 
Beijing--one of our most important posts--is literally falling apart. 
Numerous other facilities, on every continent, require extensive repair 
work.
  At other foreign affairs agencies, the story is much the same. At the 
U.S. Information Agency, funding is 13 percent below the average in the 
past 20 years. Two programs which are among our cheapest and most cost-
effective foreign policy tools--exchanges and international 
broadcasting--have been particularly affected.
  For example, budget cuts and a consolidation of all international 
broadcasting have forced reductions in programming on the Voice of 
America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. During the Cold War, 
services like Radio Free Europe provided a steady breath of truth to 
those trapped behind the Iron Curtain.
  Today, their mission, and the mission of the new Radio Free Asia, is 
no less important. During my recent visit to Moscow, a leading member 
of the Russian legislature pleaded for the continuation of Radio 
Liberty, which is regarded as a critical tool in a country where the 
media remains under strong influence of the government and the ruling 
classes.
  The steepest reductions in our foreign policy budget have come in 
foreign assistance, which at $11.5 billion last year--again, using 
fiscal 1998 dollars--is lower, in real terms, than any year of the last 
20, and some 36 percent below the historical average of that period.
  Foreign aid spending has been steadily falling since the early 
1990's. Reductions of this magnitude have undermined American influence 
and interests around the globe.
  It is popular to assert that foreign aid is merely the foreign policy 
equivalent of welfare, a supposed giveaway of massive dimensions that 
yields few benefits to American interests, and that if we merely ended 
the program, our problems with the budget deficit would be over. Wrong 
on both counts.
  Through our foreign assistance programs we help to combat the 
scourges of drug trafficking, international crime, terrorism, and arms 
proliferation. For example, our contributions to the International Law 
Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary, has helped to train nearly 
3,000 foreign law enforcement personnel in fighting organized crime, 
drugs, and international money laundering. American contributions to 
these efforts is an important way in which we protect our interests 
abroad.
  To state the obvious, if we ended all foreign aid--both economic and 
military assistance--we would not end our deficit problem. And the 
programs are far from a giveaway; they are an investment in our 
security.
  Mr. President, I am not the only one who feels that reductions in 
foreign affairs spending have put American interests at risk.
  A recent independent, bipartisan blue ribbon panel jointly sponsored 
by the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations came 
to the same conclusion.
  They concluded that ``the cuts already made in the international 
affairs discretionary account have adversely affected, to a significant 
degree, the ability of the United States to protect and promote its 
economic, diplomatic and strategic agendas abroad.
  ``Unless this trend is reversed, American vital interests will be 
jeopardized.''
  Mr. President, we cannot let this trend continue. It is a delusion to 
believe that America can remain actively engaged in the world if we 
continue to deny the President and the Secretary of State the resources 
necessary for the conduct of American foreign policy.
  An important first step in the right direction has been taken by 
funding in full President Clinton's international affairs budget 
request for fiscal 1998.
  Yet, as I have demonstrated here today, after several years of 
drastic cuts, continued funding is critical to restoring and enhancing 
America's vital diplomatic capacity.
  As it has been reported, the President has decided to reorganize the 
many foreign affairs agencies of the Federal Government.
  I support the President's reorganization plan, and believe that we 
should eliminate duplication and waste in our foreign policy programs.
  However, we in the Congress must keep in mind the needs of the next 
century and the importance of our diplomatic presence abroad.
  I also want to make clear that our reform efforts should be driven 
not by the imperative of budgetary savings--as important as that is--
but by the need to ensure that we have a robust diplomatic presence 
around the globe in order to protect the gains of our cold war victory.
  Let me also unequivocally state that any savings realized from 
reorganization of our foreign policy agencies should not be diverted 
elsewhere but re-allocated to enhance our diplomatic readiness.
  Moreover, in acting to ensure adequate funding for American foreign 
policy, we should also end the false distinction--in both our thinking 
and our budgeting--between foreign policy and national defense.
  For years, we have distinguished between the two as if they were 
separate and unrelated aspects of our national budget.
  But that is hardly the case. Quite the opposite: The two are closely 
linked, and should be similarly conceived as part of a broader national 
security budget.
  This is far from a radical concept. More than most Americans, members 
of the U.S. military well understand that diplomacy is the front-line 
of our national defense.
  Both our diplomats and our soldiers work on a daily basis to protect 
our national security, and their missions overlap frequently.
  When American aircraft carriers are deployed to the Taiwan Straits, 
they are not only showing American military power, they are 
demonstrating the United States commitment to security and stability in 
East Asia.
  When American diplomats negotiate nuclear and conventional arms 
control agreements in Europe and Eurasia, they are strengthening 
European security, a vital national interest which has long been 
central to our defense planning.
  In short, just as the projection of military power is a diplomatic 
tool, diplomacy is a weapon in the arsenal of our national defense. 
Both are vital to our national interest; both should be protected.
  Mr. President, the debate over the form and substance of our Nation's 
foreign policy comes down to this--will America lead?
  I believe our interests call for it. The sacrifices of our 
grandparents and parents require it. The future of this great country 
demands it.
  Mr. President, the end of the cold war and the approach of a new 
century provides a historic moment for the United States to play a 
decisive role in world affairs--to bend the course of history slightly. 
Such moments are rare.
  The last such time, after the conflagration of the Second World War, 
saw an active American leadership role in shaping the institutions that 
were central to world history in the last half of this century--
institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the 
World Bank.
  Like the choices made by Presidents named Roosevelt and Truman and 
Senators named Connolly and Vandenburg a half century ago, the 
decisions we make now could affect the course of world history for 
generations to come.
  Congress needs to reinforce America's leadership in the world, and 
provide the resources necessary to protect our interests overseas.
  We bear a responsibility to the American people to make the case and 
show the benefits for these investments, as well as the costs of not 
pursuing them.
  I, for one, will do everything I can as ranking minority member on 
the Foreign Relations Committee to make sure that we do.
  Rather than resting on our laurels after winning the cold war, we 
must be even more resolute, lest we squander an opportunity to bring 
peace and democracy to even more people across the globe.

[[Page S4914]]



                          ____________________