[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3544-H3547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


GEPHARDT SPEECH TO WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS AND 
   THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS DESERVES CAREFUL STUDY BY HOUSE 
                                MEMBERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues a speech made last week by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the House of Representatives Democratic leader. He offered 
ideas for constructing a strong, bipartisan, long-term approach to the 
war on terrorism in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center 
for Scholars and to the Council on Foreign Relations. As we have come 
to know and expect, our distinguished leader offered outstanding 
insights and thoughtful proposals for dealing with the urgent issues of 
our Nation's foreign policy.
  Leader Gephardt outlined proposals to build consensus for military 
transformation so we can win the war on terrorism. He offered a 21st 
Century foreign policy to promote prosperity, democracy and universal 
education for stability and opportunity in the developing world. He 
proposed greater citizen involvement in all aspects of our public 
diplomacy. Leader Gephardt urged the administration to do more to 
strengthen international alliances that will help fight terrorism, and 
he called for the much faster development of a tough new homeland 
defense strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, Leader Gephardt wisely stated in his speech that the 
goal of America's foreign policy in the 21st century should be ``to 
promote the universal values of freedom, fairness and opportunity, 
which has never been more in America's self-interest. We should seek to 
lead a community of nations that are law-abiding, prosperous and 
democratic. Such a world would leave fewer places for terrorists to 
hide and more places for citizens across the globe to pursue life, 
liberty, and happiness.''
  The three qualities of this foreign policy, as Leader Gephardt points 
out, should be economic development, democracy, and universal 
education. These qualities are not only intimately interconnected and 
self-reinforcing, but they are critical to the achievement of long-term 
American security and prosperity and, more importantly, they are 
pragmatic, achievable, and cost-effective.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out an additional observation that 
Leader Gephardt made in his speech. He could not have been more correct 
when he said that ``America must lead'' and that ``leadership is not a 
synonym for unilateralism.'' The recent U.S. foreign policy moves 
towards international agreements, multilateral institutions, and 
transnational issues such as the environment pose a threat to our 
ability to prosecute the war on terrorism effectively by putting at 
risk the assistance and cooperation of other nations, including some of 
our closest allies. America must remain engaged and America must lead.
  Leader Gephardt's ideas deserve the thoughtful consideration of all 
of us as we grapple with America's course in foreign policy. I am proud 
to enter a copy of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt)'s speech 
into the Record, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it the 
thorough reading and study it deserves.

 Building a New Long-Term Strategy for American Leadership and Security

       Today, we are gathering almost nine months after enemies of 
     America killed more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens.
       It has been eight months since America sent troops into 
     battle in Afghanistan and five months since dialogue in the 
     Middle East broke down and that region sank into destructive 
     waves of suicide bombings.
       Today, events continue to move swiftly, with momentous 
     consequences for our nation and for the people of the world.
       I believe now is the appropriate time to reflect on how we 
     have gotten here, but much more importantly, where we must 
     go.
       Too often, issues of national security are considered 
     separately--they are seen as fragmented, distinct disputes, 
     such as: Must we prepare for two major simultaneous wars? 
     What should be our diplomatic approach to the Middle East? Or 
     will Americans back peacekeeping in some foreign land?
       But it is also evident, when we take a step back, that 
     these issues are profoundly interwinded, and that we must 
     approach them from the single perspective of ensuring 
     America's security.
       The world in which we live is very different from the Cold 
     War era, when a bipartisan group of ``wise men'' shaped our 
     thinking. I do not need to talk very much about the trends 
     that have remade our times--we live with them every day.
       Globalization has made events in faraway places more 
     relevant to use that ever before.
       Information technology and the latest scientific revolution 
     have changed the way we live and produced astonishing gains 
     in productivity and knowledge.
       And, of course, the crumbling of the Soviet empire has 
     fundamentally changed the strategic face of the globe.
       With the advent of each of these trends, the world has 
     become closer, moved faster, and grown more interconnected.
       Great wars have been followed by uneasy peace as America 
     has struggled to create international arrangements to 
     preserve harmony. After each war, America has debated how 
     engaged it should be in world affairs; and when the peace has 
     been broken, America has chosen to engage the world ever more 
     closely.
       I urge this Administration to build on this tradition of 
     engagement, not turn away from it. Now is the time to take 
     the long view of this challenge. We are often too focused on 
     issues at the margins of the status quo. This is not going to 
     be a short struggle or an easy one. In addition to all we are 
     doing now, we will need to do more. We will need to make our 
     military stronger, our homeland safer, and build alliances 
     abroad to serve American interests.
       We are engaged in a global conflict. We face a competition 
     between governance and terror, between the great majority who 
     benefit from order, and the small few who thrive on chaos.
       The question today is whether a collection of nation 
     states--committed to human values of democracy and freedom, 
     the rule of law and tolerance--can succeed in a struggle 
     against the ideology of fanaticism and extremism, an ideology 
     that holds us to be the political, economic, and cultural 
     enemy and states its desire to destroy America.
       While we now have terrorist organizations on the run, we 
     must acknowledge that in some ways they are succeeding in 
     creating division. Enemies of America still flourish, sowing 
     seeds of hatred for this country and reaping violence. Some 
     terrorist groups are small in number, limited in visibility 
     and short on supplies. Others find harbor in failed states or 
     enjoy support from sympathetic regimes, utilizing 
     sophisticated technology to hatch their murderous plots. This 
     is a tough, complicated foe, one that should not be 
     oversimplified or underestimated.
       Over the past half-century, America's bipartisan policy of 
     containment served to hem in and deter a singular, comparable 
     adversary. Today, with smaller, less discernible enemies, we 
     need a strategy that seeks not to wall off threatening parts 
     of the world, but to engage potentially hostile regions.
       We need to be prepared to deliver the most forceful 
     military responses to provocation, but also to expand 
     opportunities for peace and prosperity. With deference to 
     George Kennan, the seminal work he did at the Council on 
     Foreign Relations, and the institute here that bears his 
     name, I believe such a policy could be called one of 
     commitment. With determination as our guide, we must move 
     forward with a unified approach:
       A commitment to constantly updating the most effective 
     military ever;
       A commitment to being engaged diplomatically all over the 
     world;
       A commitment to making our homeland secure and involving 
     our citizens and our leaders in the issues of the world.
       President Bush was right Saturday to say we are fighting a 
     new war and will have to be ready to strike when necessary, 
     not just deter. But on the home front, we are moving too 
     slowly to develop a homeland defense plan that is tough 
     enough for this new war.
       Let us be clear about the stakes in this struggle. As in 
     all wars, the question is not just who shall govern, but also 
     one of life itself. More than 3,000 people died on Sept. 
     11th. And American lives remain at risk so long as we are in 
     this conflict.


                     modernization of the military

       Of course, no one makes a greater sacrifice, or a more 
     important contribution to our security, than our nation's 
     military. The first challenge of a new policy is to 
     strengthen our Armed Forces for the future.
       We know our military must go through a transformation--and 
     we need our legislative branch to be working on this 
     transformation along with the executive and uniformed 
     services.
       Each of the branches is already reaching for the goal of 
     modernization. In the future, our Army will be lighter and 
     faster; our Navy will deploy smaller, stealthier ships; 
     the Marines will move faster and with more firepower; and 
     the Air Force will revolutionize its planes and weapons 
     systems.
       The results will be positive. As Bill Owens, the former 
     Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has suggested, electronics 
     and computers should dramatically improve our forces without 
     huge cost increases.
       But to set goals and achieve them are two different things. 
     While some experts foresee transformations that could take up 
     to 30 years, much of what we must accomplish has to happen in 
     15 or less. So we need to focus our energies and our 
     resources.
       My suggestions for military reform come with two 
     qualifiers.
       First, I am deeply committed to not politicizing our 
     military and strategic decision-

[[Page H3545]]

     making. We achieve nothing if a good idea for our Department 
     of Defense becomes a Republican or Democratic idea and gets 
     bogged down in politics.
       Good ideas are too crucial to our nation to let them 
     founder on partisanship. We need to change the way we think--
     not just update our weapons systems--and we need to look for 
     good ideas everywhere.
       Second, I hope that the suggestions I make today form the 
     basis for further discussions. A comprehensive plan will come 
     from the contributions of many. While I have a broad view of 
     the direction I hope we will take, the complete picture can 
     only be sketched out here.
       I believe we can strengthen our military through bipartisan 
     efforts in three key areas: supporting the people who make up 
     our Armed Forces; improving our technology and weaponry; and 
     modernizing our systems for logistics and supply.
       First, we must work together to make sure we have a 
     sufficient number of troops, and that they receive better 
     compensation, and get the superb training they need.
       Under President Reagan, the Armed Forces reached a peak of 
     about 2.2 million. Much has changed since that time: we 
     currently have 1.4 million soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
     marines who are severely strained as they bravely carry out a 
     growing number of missions. General Ralston, our commander of 
     NATO and U.S. troops in Europe, recently told Congress that 
     he does not have the forces to accomplish what we are asking 
     of him.
       Rep. Ike Skelton has been a strong leader on this issue in 
     the House Armed Services Committee, and I will work with him 
     to add troops in 2003.
       I recently read a disturbing article in the New York Times 
     that described the situation of a young Sergeant, Eric Vega, 
     who is with the 459th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. 
     Since he was activated on Sept. 22nd, Sergeant Vega has been 
     on leave from his job with the Virginia State Troopers.
       Because of his service this year, he has lost about $25,000 
     in overtime pay, is working 14 to 18 hour days, and can't see 
     very much of his 11 month old twins.
       I was heartened to read that he still planned to ren-
     enlist. But it is wrong that we are putting men and women 
     like him through that. It is enough of a sacrifice to risk 
     your life for your country; you should not have to also 
     sacrifice your financial future.
       Sens. McCain and Bayh, Reps. Ford and Osborne have 
     introduced bills to let young Americans sign an ``18-18-18 
     plan,'' which is one smart option for bringing more people 
     into the service. Under this plan, which builds on work 
     already begun in the Armed Services Committees, a person 
     could serve 18 months in active duty, 18 months in the 
     reserves and receive an $18,000 bonus, which can be used 
     for educational purposes at the end of his or her service.
       We need to keep investigating more innovative ways to help 
     people serve.
       We also need to work together to reform our training 
     system.
       When I was in the Air National Guard, back in my younger 
     days, I enjoyed the fierce rivalry my Air Force buddies felt 
     towards the Army. But we had little contact with the Army. 
     You trained and worked with those from your own branch. When 
     a mission was called for, you were supposed to be ready. When 
     it was an Army job, then it was their turn.
       Wars, of course, don't work like that anymore. And in 
     recent years, our service branches have worked well together 
     to develop joint operational capabilities. But we can do 
     better.
       I suggest we create and expand military academies that 
     would train field officers from all the services in new forms 
     of strategies and tactics. Such schools could teach joint 
     operations more comprehensively--intermingling air, land, 
     seas and space for the battles ahead.
       It would be a useful step in breaking down barriers between 
     the services, and in creating integrated tactical units.
       If President Bush is interested, I think this is one area 
     where we could easily work together and make quick progress. 
     And I would be willing to go much further and support 
     programs to recruit and retain even more of the best students 
     to prepare our military for the tasks ahead.
       The second challenge in military modernization is the 
     acquisition of smart weapons and technologies that provide 
     better knowledge of the battlefield.
       Under the President's current budget proposal, we will be 
     spending $470 billion a year on defense by 2007, making it 
     seem that we will be able to buy every weapon imaginable.
       But even at that huge amount, we need to spend wisely.
       One of the best things we can do is transform our military 
     by linking new technologies with existing ones.
       I have been heartened, for example, to hear about the 
     success of the GPS guidance kits that can be attached to so-
     called ``dumb bombs'' dropped by pilot-less aircraft or B-
     52's.
       This relatively simple innovation makes bombs more accurate 
     and is less expensive than designing whole new weapons 
     systems.
       And where we can design entirely new weapons that 
     revolutionize our capabilities on the battlefield, we must 
     move ahead at full pace. One of the great successes in 
     Afghanistan has been our ability to integrate data, an area 
     where we must continue to invest.
       Pilot-less surveillance aircraft, like the Air Force's 
     Predator, helped us get real time data on the enemy's 
     movements, saving pilots and allowing commanders to respond 
     immediately.
       The acquisition of these planes may seem costly--the 2003 
     budget calls for $150 million dollars more--but pilot-less 
     planes will cost much less than an F-22. The quicker we 
     can move to a dominating position with them worldwide, the 
     better off we will be.
       The third area where we could obtain improved performance, 
     and make our budgets more efficient, is logistics and 
     procurement.
       Experts generally refer to the amount of resources devoted 
     to support functions as opposed to war fighting capability as 
     the `tail to tooth' ratio--and while the ratio was once 50/50 
     it is now 70% tail and only 30% tooth. The financial planning 
     process at the Pentagon has not been overhauled since it was 
     implemented almost 40 years ago by Robert McNamara. And a 
     1997 DOD report found that of the US military's $64 billion 
     inventory of supplies, over $20 billion was obsolete.
       We need to update our logistics and supply systems.
       I want to thank the Business Executives for National 
     Security--in particular the Chairman of its Executive 
     Committee, Dr. Sidney Harman--for the insightful and non-
     partisan work they have done to highlight these issues. Dr. 
     Harman and his group found that by adopting the best business 
     practices for the military, the Pentagon could save $20-$30 
     billion annually without sacrificing quality.
       In 2000, it took an average of 30 days to receive a part 
     through the defense logistics system. In contrast, the 
     Caterpillar company can ship a part anywhere in the world 
     within 48 hours, and usually in less than a day. We also know 
     that the buying process takes too long. I was struck to read 
     that development of the Crusader artillery system has already 
     taken over ten years, while Boeing developed the 777 in just 
     five.
       These delays cost money and results in time lost on the 
     battlefield. Congress has been guilty of its own share of 
     micromanaging and politics. I hope that we can work together 
     better in this era where a weapon may be ``smart'' for only 
     so long, and prolonged congressional fights--and procurement 
     delays--may mean technology is stale by the time it is fully 
     deployed.
       Throughout the military and Congress, there will be 
     opportunities to work together to make sure transformation 
     happens quickly. We have a chance in this new era to break 
     down some old left/right obstacles and build consensus for 
     moving forward.
       I would like to make another offer to President Bush and 
     Secretary Rumsfeld. I am ready to work with them and Speaker 
     Hastert to appoint members to a bipartisan advisory 
     commission to help build consensus for updating and 
     modernizing the Armed Forces. The commission could work with 
     experts and the Congress to make sure--just as we did during 
     the Cold War--that we create bipartisan support for 
     modernization and succeed at the new type of fighting already 
     upon us.
       In World War II, Churchill said, ``Let us learn our 
     lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth 
     or easy.'' We would be foolish to forget that. If we learn 
     our lessons together, we can make our military more 
     effective, and make the world safer for all people.


                      21st century foreign policy

       But meeting the terrorist threat means rethinking more than 
     simply the way we fight wars. We also need to reexamine the 
     way in which we conduct our foreign policy. Our enemies are 
     no longer just hostile governments, but foreign demagogues 
     who seek support from the most impoverished citizens of the 
     developing world.
       On the diplomatic front, a policy of commitment helps us 
     prevent war and promote stability. This is especially true in 
     the area of foreign assistance.
       A central goal of our foreign aid during the Cold War was 
     to preserve alliances and prevent Soviet influence. Whether a 
     recipient government was authoritarian or democratic was not 
     the primary consideration, and promoting economic development 
     was not always a goal. On the one hand, the Marshall Plan 
     rebuilt Western Europe and ultimately locked in democracy 
     from Germany to Greece. On the other hand, American aid to 
     Zaire did little to improve living standards in that country. 
     But it did make President Mobutu one of the richest men in 
     the world.
       Today, promoting the universal values of freedom, fairness 
     and opportunity has never been more in America's self-
     interest. We should seek to lead a community of nations that 
     are law-abiding, prosperous, and democratic. Such a world 
     would leave fewer places for terrorists to hide, and more 
     places for citizens across the globe to pursue life, liberty 
     and happiness.
       Afghanistan offers an excellent example of the strategic 
     rationale for such a shift. America was generous to that 
     country during much of the Cold War, and American military 
     aid following the Soviet invasion was successful in its 
     limited goal. In terms of a Cold War calculation, we had won 
     and the rationale for American aid to Afghanistan 
     disappeared.
       But into the vacuum left by the Soviet departure and the 
     reduction in American interest, came an era of lawlessness 
     and then the repressive theocracy of the Taliban. While

[[Page H3546]]

     some may have argued before September 11th that what happened 
     in nations like Afghanistan didn't matter to Americans, we 
     now know that tragically, it does. Today, nations in trouble 
     or chaos anywhere in the world have real consequences for the 
     United States.
       Some people have suggested that we stop using the term 
     ``foreign aid.'' I agree. We should remake and rename it. 
     Traditional foreign aid may have worked as a Cold War 
     construct, but our goal now should be what I call American 
     Partnerships. We should work closely with countries that want 
     to improve bilateral relations and benefit their people, and 
     insist that these relationships are true partnerships based 
     on shared values.
       If we can help create a world with more economic growth, 
     better health care, stronger education, and more human 
     rights, particularly for women, we will be fulfilling an 
     essential part of our foreign policy.
       Let me outline three qualities that should comprise this 
     strategy.
       Economic development, democracy, and universal education.
       First, economic development.
       People without access to jobs and the hope for a better 
     life face a bleak and desperate future. In the last several 
     decades, as the rest of the world opened up--as trade and 
     freedom of movement have become more a fact of life for 
     most--many parts of the Middle East and Central Asia have 
     remained closed. Regional barriers have discouraged trade, 
     populations have skyrocketed, and too many economies have 
     grown dependent on a single commodity--oil.
       We know that when nations open themselves up economically, 
     they will ultimately enjoy greater prosperity and moderation. 
     Trade is one important part of lifting up poor nations.
       In a speech I gave in January to the Democratic Leadership 
     Council, I said that it is time we crafted a ``new 
     consensus'' on trade. Everyone knows that trade should be an 
     engine of growth for all nations, and that we can move beyond 
     simple left vs. right debates to craft agreements that both 
     promote trade and protect the environment and labor.
       I suggested then that the US-Jordan trade agreement was a 
     model that serves American economic interests. Today, I also 
     want to point out that it profoundly serves our national 
     security and strategic interests as well.
       There are promising signs that we can build on this new 
     consensus. We are currently negotiating trade agreements with 
     Chile and Singapore, two nations that are ready to use Jordan 
     as a model.
       If we are to open the Middle East and other regions to the 
     hope of peace and prosperity, we will need more agreements 
     like the one we reached with Jordan that meet these goals.
       But trade alone for many countries will not be enough. We 
     need a generation of development partnerships that promote 
     free markets and democratic governments and are leveraged to 
     spur growth.
       Luckily, we have an opportunity for progress with the 
     Millennium Fund that the President recently proposed in 
     Monterrey, Mexico. I support its goal of fighting poverty and 
     hunger, encouraging universal education, enhancing women's 
     rights and health, reducing child mortality and promoting 
     sustainable development. But we need to make sure this fund 
     is not a shell game, diverting resources from other worthy 
     development efforts, and I hope the President will work with 
     Congress to provide increases for effective programs in the 
     2003 budget.
       Some of these new partnerships should also come in the form 
     of micro-loans: support to individuals or small businesses 
     who need access to capital and opportunity.
       In almost two-dozen Moroccan cities, small indigenous NGOs 
     supported by the United States are dispensing $50 to $700 
     loans to individuals seeking to establish and expand 
     businesses of their own. Such programs have generated tens of 
     thousands of jobs around the world, and they build a 
     foundation for future macroeconomic growth.
       Other support must help to defeat the scourge of HIV/AIDS. 
     To achieve economic development, we must work together to 
     improve prevention, treatment and care for people with this 
     disease. I have been to Africa and seen the devastating 
     pandemic on that continent, from Zimbabwe's villages to South 
     Africa's maternity wards. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is 
     a development crisis. And its ability to spread rapidly and 
     destabilize nations in Africa and elsewhere makes it a 
     national security crisis, too.
       Updating our foreign policy also requires renewing our 
     commitment to democracy.
       In my career, I've been fortunate to spend a good deal of 
     time abroad meeting with foreign leaders and their citizens. 
     You can't learn everything out of a briefing book, and I've 
     learned a great deal from these travels. But nothing prepared 
     me for the suspicions towards America I found on my recent 
     trip to the Middle East.
       Many students I met in relatively moderate nations such as 
     Morocco asked questions about American plots against their 
     land that seemed outlandish. The questioners often cited 
     regular news broadcasts--media that in too many countries are 
     filled with calls for hatred and violence. Just weeks ago, an 
     outrageous Saudi broadcast called for the enslavement of 
     Israeli women.
       We know in America that the antidote to these voices is 
     more freedom. The censorship of legitimate criticism by some 
     governments too often leads to popular anger and a search 
     for scapegoats. We need to help moderate voices be heard 
     in these counties because they will offer a better way for 
     the future.
       And we can help. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio 
     Free Asia should be marketed as models for the delivery of 
     compelling, objective broadcasting cross the globe. In a 
     world within terrorism, our security is enhanced when 
     accurate information about our policies can reach every 
     household.
       We need to nurture civil society in these regions, work 
     with governments and nascent legislatures, and encourage free 
     expression and the broadening of rights for all people. The 
     National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, NDI and 
     IRI, deserve more support to expand the good work they're 
     already doing in this area.
       We also must fight corruption and take measures to advance 
     the rule of law. Of particular importance at this moment, we 
     must demand that the Palestinian Authority take steps to 
     formulate a truly operational, accountable and democratic 
     governing entity. To date, Chairman Arafat has failed in each 
     of these areas. Real progress toward peace will only be 
     possible when the Palestinian Authority begins to adopt the 
     rule of law and accountability as guiding principles.
       The third value that I think is stressed too little in our 
     current foreign policy is education.
       The Pakistani government spends 90% of its budget on debt 
     service and the military, and practically nothing on 
     education. Governments in other developing countries have 
     similar difficulties in meeting the demands of a rapidly 
     growing population. In some Middle Eastern nations, almost 
     half the people are under the age of 15, and the total 
     population is expected to double in the next two decades. The 
     majority of children in the Arab and Muslim world do not have 
     access to a public education. Worldwide, more then 130 
     million children are not in school and do not receive a 
     regular meal each day.
       Beyond the intrinsic merits of education, we know that in 
     countries where education is universal, economies expand and 
     population growth is held in check.
       We should work with developing nations to help them create 
     universal education systems. I am happy that the Farm Bill 
     includes the bipartisan George McGovern-Bob Dole initiative 
     to provide school meals to hungry children if their parents 
     allow them to go to school, and if the host country agrees to 
     a program of education development.
       It is a good start and one we should expand.
       We must also encourage and help nations develop objective 
     curricula that will advance their place in a global society. 
     In Arab nations in particular, we must work, with governments 
     to force blatant and ugly anti-Semitic and anti-American 
     rhetoric out of textbooks and out of the classroom. If we 
     don't make this a high priority, our hope of achieving a 
     lasting peace in that region will never be realized. And our 
     hope of building long-term partnerships will be dashed.
       I've touched on a few ways in which a refocused diplomatic 
     agenda can promote long-term change in the Middle East. But 
     let me be more direct. Depending on the choices we make in 
     the weeks and months ahead, the Middle East will either 
     continue to be a tinderbox for international instability, or 
     a land of new alliances and hope for the future.
       Having witnessed the downward spiral of events in the 
     region over the past year, I believe our first choice is 
     clear--America must lead. We cannot expect that the parties 
     to this conflict will resole it without the active support of 
     the United States. We must be steadfast in our support for 
     Israel, in words and deeds. The United States must speak 
     frankly: there is no moral equivalence between suicide 
     bombings and defending against them.
       We need strong measures to replace violence with dialogue, 
     and despair with hope. And we must seek a lasting peace that 
     provides real security for Israel and opportunity for all 
     people in the region.
       The other regional challenge that requires American 
     leadership is Iraq. Saddam Hussein survives by repressing his 
     people and feeding on a cult of victimization. He is clearly 
     not a victim, and I share President Bush's resolve to 
     confront this menace head-on. We should use diplomatic tools 
     where we can, but military means when we must to eliminate 
     the threat he poses to the region and our own security. New 
     foreign policy initiatives can help remove one of the legs of 
     Saddam's survival by reducing the desperation of many in the 
     Arab world who see him as a defiant ray of hope. At the same 
     time, we should be prepared to remove the other leg with the 
     use of force. I stand ready to work with this Administration 
     to build an effective policy to terminate the threat posed by 
     this regime.


                        Strengthening Alliances

       As we reform our military and update our foreign policy, we 
     must recognize that America cannot and should not do this 
     alone. Leadership is not a synonym for unilateralism. When we 
     lead a coalition, we advance not just universal values, but 
     mutual security as well.
       After World War II, the United States created institutions 
     that promoted economic growth and forged the military 
     alliances that stood against communism. President Clinton 
     wisely built on that tradition, creating new alliances that 
     strengthened America's security. I hope the Administration 
     will

[[Page H3547]]

     consider a new generation of international partnerships, 
     regional security alliances, more flexible financial 
     institutions, and treaties to help manage increasing 
     economic, political, and military complexity.
       Over the past year, despite the unifying force of the war 
     on terrorism, an undercurrent of unilateralism has strained 
     our relations with allies in Europe, Asia and Latin America. 
     Instead, we need to redouble efforts to strengthen NATO and 
     reinvigorate bilateral pacts with South Korea and Japan. In 
     this hemisphere, we should take advantage of the recently 
     invoked Rio Pact to harmonize security arrangements and 
     pursue democratic and economic objectives. And we must 
     leverage all of these ties to forge wider regional alliances.
       I commend the Bush Administration for its work to construct 
     a stronger partnership between NATO and Russia. This new 
     arrangement should ultimately break down lingering suspicions 
     and allow us to maximize strengths to confront shared 
     threats.
       At the same time, we must intensify our bilateral work with 
     Russia on a range of issues, especially the need to destroy 
     unneeded nuclear weapons and keep others out of the hands of 
     terrorists and rogue nations. Former Sen. Sam Nunn has 
     identified this threat as the new nuclear arms race, and I 
     join him in calling for immediate steps to avert what is no 
     longer the unthinkable--the use of a weapon of mass 
     destruction by an unknown enemy. Our government must allocate 
     additional funds to secure these weapons and their 
     components, and accept no more excuses for the proliferation 
     of dangerous materials from Russia to Iran and elsewhere.
       The severe consequences of proliferation are on vivid 
     display in the current tensions between India and Pakistan. 
     We must do everything possible--on our own and with our 
     allies--to diffuse this stand off, because the terrorists who 
     have fueled it will be the sole beneficiaries of an all-out 
     war. This is the new world in which we live. Disputes 
     once considered remote can have deadly consequences if met 
     with American apathy.
       We must also continue to encourage China's participation in 
     bilateral and regional endeavors, provided that it agrees to 
     the price of admission--adherence to international standards 
     including human rights, trade practices and nonproliferation 
     rules. As former Defense Secretary Bill Perry proved a few 
     years ago in helping to develop a visionary policy toward 
     North Korea, the United States and China can make great 
     progress if we recognize the common, long-term interests that 
     our people share.
       We should also look to new regional structures for 
     projecting strength and stability, especially in places where 
     our government is not willing to commit U.S. forces. A case 
     in point is Africa, which some have claimed is not a national 
     security priority for the United States. I disagree, and I 
     was disappointed when the Bush administration cut funding for 
     the Africa Crisis Responsive Initiative. This program was 
     designed to build indigenous capability within Africa that 
     could respond when needed, and help regional leaders like 
     Nigeria calm trouble spots so the United States would not 
     have to.
       We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that 
     flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of 
     this today. The Administration deserves credit for the 
     military victory there. However, it will be shortsighted if 
     we stop now and withhold support for expanding the 
     international security presence beyond Kabul, as Interim 
     President Karzai has urgently requested. Instead, we must 
     take steps to make that nation a prime example of the 
     coalition's unbending commitment to democracy and 
     development.


                         challenge to americans

       The last challenge I'd like to discuss today is to instill 
     all these initiatives with a new energy of civic involvement 
     at home and abroad.
       In a new, more interconnected world, individuals or small 
     groups can pose a serious threat to America's heartland. 
     Nineteen hijackers did what Germany and Japan failed to 
     achieve in the entire Second World War. This is a new front 
     involving our firefighter and police, our EMS, the INS, the 
     Customs Agency, the Coast Guard and all other organizations 
     responsible for protecting the United States.
       This is a completely new threat to our home front, and I am 
     deeply concerned that the appropriate sense of urgency is 
     absent from our civil defense efforts.
       After Pearl Harbor, we moved with speed to mobilize our 
     nation in defense of democracy. Almost nine months after 
     Sept. 11th, America has still not crafted a strategy to 
     significantly strengthen our nation's security, despite a 
     series of recent warnings from our government.
       We need to reorganize our homeland defense agencies in 
     order to maximize the safety of all Americans. Not only does 
     the Homeland Security Director need to be a cabinet officer--
     he needs budgetary authority. He needs operational authority. 
     And he must provide a comprehensive plan to the Congress on 
     our national strategy for homeland security. Such a plan 
     should involve all Americans in our civil defense effort.
       As the Intelligence Committees begin their hearings today, 
     we all know that our ability to coordinate information 
     gathered at home and abroad needs to be improved. A task 
     force led by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft 
     has developed proposals to better integrate the work of our 
     intelligence agencies. Given the urgency of collecting and 
     utilizing intelligence effectively, I hope the Administration 
     will act upon these ideas.
       Finally, we must harness the spirit that defined people's 
     response to the Sept. 11th attacks. American citizens who 
     have enjoyed the rich benefits of democracy and free 
     markets possess a unique capacity to energize these values 
     across the world.
       Let's be clear: Americans face a special challenge in this 
     conflict: to educate ourselves as never before, to 
     participate in decisions that affect all out lives, and to 
     make connections with people across the globe. We need to 
     encourage citizens of all ages to get involved in the Peace 
     Corps, the diplomatic corps, Americorps, the CIA and the FBI.
       One of the efforts I am most enthusiastic about helps 
     experienced Americans go overseas and share their skills with 
     people in developing countries.
       I met a retired businessman from Chicago on my most recent 
     trip to the Middle East. He had volunteered to run a start-up 
     micro-loan program in Morocco. With his project nearing 
     completion, I asked him what he was planning to do next.
       ``I thought about going home to play golf,'' he said. ``But 
     I have decided to stay in the Middle East. I've seen what can 
     be achieved here in Morocco, and I am going to another 
     country and do it all over again.''
       For every American like him, we counteract a book of lies. 
     For every business he helps succeed and every person who 
     finds a job, we diminish the pool from which the haters 
     recruit.
       At home, government, industry, and individuals must also 
     participate in this effort to expand knowledge of other 
     peoples, and foster interaction between nations.
       In 1994, Newt Gingrich and I sponsored a pilot exchange 
     program devised by the San-Francisco-based Center for Citizen 
     Initiatives. Individual families in St. Louis and Atlanta 
     hosted a handful of Russian entrepreneurs who came here to 
     learn skills from American business people. Today, hundreds 
     of Russians are coming to the U.S. each year to get hands-on 
     training and Americans in more than 40 states are 
     participating in the program.
       The challenge for every American is to convince the world 
     that it is better to live together than at war, looking 
     toward the promise of the future rather than the grievances 
     of the past.
       Updating our public diplomacy requires updating our 
     politics. In the 1990s, with the Cold War over, it seemed 
     like the parties could play politics with any issue. But 
     today we need a new politics based on an open exchange of 
     approaches. We must be free to propose ideas and work 
     together to implement the best ones. This may well be the 
     most important public policy question of our lifetimes. We 
     must be doing our very best, thinking our very best, working 
     together at our very best.
       If we do, I think there is every reason for optimism.
       Extremist leaders who advocate violence against America 
     must constantly worry that their own rhetoric will consume 
     themselves and their cause. To quote Churchill once more, 
     ``dictators ride on tigers which they dare not dismount.'' In 
     contrast, we have the luxury of trusting in democracy and the 
     good sense of our fellow citizens.
       Just as we battled the Soviets through 50 years of the Cold 
     War as a united America, so will we battle terrorists and 
     their supporters for as long as it takes. Today, we enjoy a 
     new and productive relationship with Russia; one day, we will 
     hopefully enjoy a new and productive relationship with those 
     who distrust us now.
       We know that civilization requires protection, and that 
     freedom demands commitment and sacrifice. But it also 
     requires imagination and clear thinking.
       In 1947, in an address to a joint session of Congress, 
     Harry Truman spoke about the communist threat in Europe, and 
     the struggle for freedom and democracy in Greece and Turkey. 
     He ended his speech with the reminder: ``Great 
     responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift 
     movement of events.''
       Twice in the last century, and now again, our nation is 
     being asked to measure itself. If we fail, the consequences 
     are severe. For ourselves, and for the world, let us succeed.

     

                          ____________________