[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1799-S1801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     RESTORING DIPLOMATIC READINESS

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Committee 
on the Budget will begin consideration of the concurrent budget 
resolution for Fiscal Year 1999. I would like to take a few minutes 
today to discuss the continuing need for our government to provide 
sufficient resources for international affairs. Since becoming the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Foreign Relations, I have focused 
special attention on this question, because I believe that adequate 
funding for these programs is essential to our national interest.
  With the collapse of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet 
empire, the United States has emerged as the world's sole remaining 
superpower. With that position comes a responsibility to take a leading 
role in international affairs. Around the globe, American leadership is 
essential to preserving stability and security, and advancing 
prosperity and economic opportunity.
  The United States cannot remain an effective world leader without 
devoting sufficient resources to diplomatic readiness. Just as we need 
to maintain and train robust military forces in order to protect our 
security, we need a well-trained and well-equipped diplomatic corps to 
advance our nation's numerous international interests. Indeed, with the 
reductions in our military presence overseas in the last decade, it is 
all the more important that we maintain a robust diplomatic presence 
around the globe, and that our diplomats, who work on the front line of 
our national defense, have the resources necessary to do their jobs.
  It is sometimes said that, in the modern information age, embassies 
and the diplomats who staff them are no longer relevant. The assertion 
is, in my view, absurd. While modern technology has eased 
communications and travel

[[Page S1800]]

across the miles, there is no substitute for being physically present 
in a foreign country. No one can fully comprehend all the intricacies 
of a nation's politics and government without living in that country. 
Equally important, diplomacy is about building trust; trust between 
governments cannot be secured over the phone and fax, but comes, 
ultimately, from personal relationships that are built over a period of 
time. In short, the telephone and the facsimile machine cannot replace 
the on-site presence of well-trained diplomats.
  Unfortunately, in recent years we have short-changed our diplomats, 
and ultimately our nation's interests, by reducing funding for 
international affairs. Indeed, by almost every measure, the budget for 
international affairs has declined precipitously over the past decade. 
Importantly, Congress is waking up to this problem. In Fiscal 1998, 
Congress increased funding for the Function 150 account--which 
encompasses foreign affairs funding--for the first time in eight years. 
But measured against historical averages, funding for international 
affairs remains low.
  According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service 
(CRS) prepared at my request, the discretionary budget authority for 
Function 150 in Fiscal 1998--$19.05 billion in Fiscal 1998 dollars--is 
22.9 percent below the average of the past two decades ($24.69 
billion). Using constant FY 1998 dollars, in only two years in the last 
two decades (Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997) was foreign affairs funding at 
lower levels than the current fiscal year. Similarly, as a percentage 
of total budget authority, Function 150 funding in FY 1998 is 1.129 
percent, nearly one-third below the annual average (1.653 percent) for 
the past two decades.
  An examination of the subfunctions of the foreign affairs budget 
tells a similar story. Funding for international development activities 
is 14.7 percent below the average of the last twenty years. Security 
assistance in Fiscal 1998 is 46.4 percent less, in real terms, than the 
average of the past two decades. Foreign information and exchanges--
this is, the broadcasting, public diplomacy and exchange programs 
carried out by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the U.S. 
Information Agency--are at a level 13.3 percent below the average of 
the period covered by the CRS study.
  Only the ``Conduct of Foreign Affairs'' subfunction, which includes 
State Department operational costs, as well as contributions to 
international organizations and peacekeeping, is above the twenty-year 
average. But it should be emphasized that the budget for this category 
in Fiscal 1998 is the smallest, in real terms, since Fiscal 1990. 
Moreover, the relative size of this category, as compared to the 1970s 
and 1980s, can be explained by significant increases in the 
international peacekeeping account, an account which was small during 
the Cold War, but has increased substantially since the late-1980s.
  Ethnic conflicts and regional rivalries--long submerged during the 
Cold War--have led to the creation of more U.N. peacekeeping missions 
in the last decade than there were in the previous three decades of the 
United Nations. In Fiscal 1990, for example, U.S. contributions to 
peacekeeping was $81 million. By Fiscal 1994, largely because of the 
U.N. operations in Bosnia and Somalia, this account totaled $1.07 
billion. The United States bears 25 percent of the cost of these 
missions, and paid 31 percent prior to 1994.
  I am pleased that the President has recognized the importance of 
assuring enhanced funding for foreign affairs by requesting $20.15 
billion in Fiscal 1999, roughly one billion dollars over Fiscal 1998. I 
would like to briefly discuss the highlights of this request, and the 
notable increases within it.
  First, the budget for State Department operations contains two 
important initiatives. First, the Department seeks authority to 
construct a new embassy in Beijing, China, and to begin construction on 
a new embassy in Berlin, Germany. Both projects are essential. Our 
embassy in Beijing is in deplorable condition, and is barely sufficient 
given our important interests there. The decision of the German 
government to move its capital from Bonn to Berlin necessitates the 
construction of the new embassy there. Several years ago, Congress 
urged the State Department to fund capital projects of this sort from 
proceeds derived from sales of existing assets. Because of 
uncertainties in several foreign real estate markets, however, several 
anticipated sales have not been realized, thus requiring the Department 
to seek funding for these construction projects, which I support.
  Second, the State Department seeks an increase in its Capital 
Investment Fund, which provides resources for modernizing its aging 
information technology infrastructure. The Department is significantly 
behind the times technologically. In many important posts and offices, 
it remains reliant on obsolete and obsolescent computer and 
telecommunications technology. To give just one example, the Department 
still has an ample supply of Wang computers; several generations of 
computer technology have emerged since the Wangs were installed, and it 
is long past time for the Department to replace these antiquated 
systems. Information is central to the task of diplomacy; modernizing 
these systems is essential to enable our diplomats to perform their 
jobs.
  The foreign assistance budget contains three increases which are 
critical to American interests. First, the Administration seeks an 
increase in the assistance for the Newly Independent States (NIS) of 
the Former Soviet Union, from $770 million to $925 million. These 
programs are designed to assist the nations of the region, including 
Russia, to make the transition from communism to democratic capitalism. 
A similar U.S. effort in Eastern Europe has already resulted in the 
``graduation'' of several nations from U.S. aid programs, demonstrating 
that American assistance to this region need not be permanent.

  Second, the Administration requests $216 million for the Non-
Proliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs account, an 
increase over the $133 million appropriated in Fiscal 1998. This funds 
a number of key programs, including the effort to keep former Soviet 
scientists employed on useful projects--a program designed to prevent 
them from selling their knowledge and skills to rogue regimes. Like the 
Nunn-Lugar program, which is funded in the 050 account, the Science 
Center program is a critical element in a strategy of containment--a 
strategy directed not at a nation or ideology, but at controlling the 
threat posed by the proliferation of dangerous technologies.
  Third, the Administration seeks a significant increase in the budget 
for international narcotics and law enforcement at the State 
Department. Specifically, it requested $275 million, a $44 million 
increase. These resources are required to continue the ongoing struggle 
against the narcotics cartels in this hemisphere and elsewhere.
  I commend the President for seeking a 20 percent increase in the 
budget for the Peace Corps, an increase designed to put the Corps on a 
path to 10,000 volunteers by the year 2000, well above the current 
number of 6,500 volunteers. The Peace Corps represents the best of 
American values and ideals, and advances American interests overseas 
immeasurably.
  Finally, the Administration has requested a supplemental 
appropriations legislation for Fiscal 1998 for the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF), and urge passage of legislation to pay off our 
arrears to the United Nations (UN) and other international 
organizations. Last year's budget agreement allows for an adjustment in 
the discretionary spending caps for these important priorities. I hope 
we will act on this legislation soon--and without linking it to 
unrelated issues.
  Mr. President, in closing, let me emphasize this: funding for foreign 
affairs is but one percent of the total federal budget. But as is 
reflected in the daily headlines and our own priorities here in the 
Senate, foreign policy comprises far more than one percent of our 
nation's interests. As our Secretary of State likes to say, it may 
account for fifty percent of the history that is written about our era.
  This is not to suggest that the foreign policy budget should 
constitute half of our federal budget; it is to remind us, however, 
that any reduction in that budget would be symbolic in its effect on 
the federal fisc, but would be significant in its effect on our 
national interests. I hope my colleagues will

[[Page S1801]]

bear that in mind as we begin debate on the budget for the coming 
fiscal year.

                          ____________________