Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 15, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5229 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF MADELEINE ALBRIGHT SECRETARY OF STATE
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOREIGN
OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, good morning. I am delighted to have the opportunity to testify
before you.
My message is straightforward. I ask you to support the
President's budget request for foreign operations in its entirety. I do so
knowing that this Subcommittee -- more than most -- is comprised of men and
women who Understand the complex demands of leadership in our era. You know
that, more and more, events overseas have an impact on our citizens here at
home, on our security, our jobs, our environment, even the safety of our streets
and schools.
And you know that because America has led for so long,
through Republican and Democratic Administrations alike, our nation was able to
enter the new century strong and respected, prosperous and at peace. The
President's Fiscal Year 2001 request for Foreign Operations is
$15.09 billion, as part of a total international affairs budget
of roughly $22.75 billion. This includes a broad array of
programs and initiatives administered by four cabinet departments and more than
a dozen agencies. It includes everything from supporting peace in the Middle
East to interdicting drugs; from curbing the spread of nuclear weapons to the
Peace Corps; and from promoting U.S. exports to responding to humanitarian
disasters.
The amount requested by the President is our best estimate of
what we will absolutely need next year. But the truth is that the world is
changing so rapidly that it is simply not possible to anticipate every need a
year or more in advance, as the budget process requires.
As you know,
last year and this, we have had to come to Congress with significant
supplemental appropriations requests. For example, to help our neighbors to the
south after Hurricanes Georges and Mitch and to help implement the Wye
Memorandum in support of Middle East peace.
This reflects the fact that
the budgets we have had to work with have been very lean, with almost zero
flexibility. Time after time, urgent needs have arisen and we have gone to the
cupboard, but the cupboard has been bare. Sometimes, we have even gone to the
sofa and felt between the cushions for loose change -- usually in vain. Finally
we have returned to Congress and asked for more help. To its credit, on the big
issues,Congress has almost always come through -- often thanks to the leadership
of members of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the
Appropriations Committee has acted expeditiously on our supplemental requests to
stem the flow of cocaine and heroin from the Andes, bolster democracy in
Southeast Europe, and keep the peace in Kosovo. These investments will help
protect American interests in key regions, and I thank you for your timely
support.
The Administration does, however, have a number of concerns
about the current version of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, and
we ask that you consider our views as this legislation moves forward.
We
strongly oppose the elimination of funds to revitalize Kosovo's economy and
civil society. Short-changing these programs would undoubtedly prolong the
region's dependence on foreign aid; and it would also prolong
the need for military force, including American soldiers, to keep the peace.
I am also concerned that the current Supplemental Bill does not include
the $210 million the President requested for debt relief. Mr.
Chairman, nations such Bolivia and Mozambique are among the poorest in the
world, but they have made strong and sustained commitments to fundamental
economic reform. It is in our own interest to help these countries stay on the
course to self-sufficiency - and that means helping to ease their international
debt burdens.
As we respond to these immediate needs, I also think we
can and should do better in funding our long-term foreign policy investments.
After all, ours is the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. And it
is in our interests to be active and ahead of the curve in attempting to
influence events. This is not only more effective; it often results in saving
resources.
For example, there could be no more productive investment
than dollars used successfully to prevent a war, or halt proliferation, or stop
an act of terrorism, or head off a famine, or slow the spread of epidemic
disease. Moreover, when we are on the scene visibly doing our part, it is much
easier to persuade our partners in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas to do
their share, as well.Today, we are doing all we can to anticipate and prevent
crises. But I must tell you that I sometimes feel like the Queen in Alice's
Wonderland, who said "it takes all the running you can do, just to stay in the
same place."
Most Americans are astonished when I tell them that we
devote a smaller percentage of our wealth to assisting overseas development than
any other industrialized country. Over the past decade, our rate of investment
has declined by 50%. Half a century ago, in the era of Truman and Marshall, our
international affairs programs, in relative terms, were more than ten times
larger than today.
All this has consequences. It reduces our influence
for stability and peace in potentially explosive regions. It detracts from our
leadership on global economic issues. It makes it harder for us to leverage the
help of others. And it often leaves us with a no-win choice between devoting
resources to one emergency and using those same resources to deal with another
urgent need.
That is why it is so important that you support the
President's full international affairs request. I emphasize this because we
truly are talking about the minimum amount we need. If you reduce our request,
you will reduce our capacity to lead.
I say this with the clear
understanding that the vast majority of the funds I seek will be spent next
year, under a new Administration. My request has nothing to do with parties or
personalities; it has everything to do with our nation's ability to protect our
interests, promote our values and meet our priorities.
And now, with
your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review some of those priorities,
with emphasis on the direct benefits our citizens derive from the work we do.
First, our international programs help make Americans more secure.
The Cold War is over and our nation is strong, but our citizens continue
to face grave dangers. These include terrorists who target Americans, possible
conflicts in key regions, drug traffickers, and the spread of nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons and the missiles that can deliver them.In many cases, we
cannot defend against these threats simply by acting alone. We need the help of
others. Nor is force always the best approach.
On many occasions, we
will rely on diplomacy as our first line of defense--to cement alliances, build
coalitions, and find ways to protect our interests without putting our fighting
men and women at risk.
An example is our effort to protect Americans
from the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
Here, the military deterrent
provided by our armed forces and the technological edge they enjoy are
indispensable. But we will sleep better and be safer if our deterrent never has
to be used. The job for our diplomats, then, is to create a political
environment in which serious military threats to our country are less likely to
arise.
To this end, the United States has led in establishing an
international legal framework--centered on the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty,
IAEA safeguards, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, and now the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty--designed to prevent weapons of mass
destruction from spreading or falling into the wrong hands.
Moreover,
our Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI) has done much to protect the
American people, destroying almost 5000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet
Union; eliminating nuclear weapons from three former Soviet Republics; and
engaging 30,000 former Soviet weapons scientists in peaceful ventures. The
President is requesting $974 million for ETRI in Fiscal Year
2001, including $141 million for programs administered by the
Department of State.
We are also taking steps to protect ourselves from
the new threats posed by ballistic missiles.
For example, on the Korean
Peninsula, we have reviewed our policy over the past year in close coordination
with Seoul and our indispensable ally Japan. We are backing President Kim
Daejung's policy of engagement with the Democratic Republic of North Korea
(DPRK), and have expressed a willingness to improve our own relations with
Pyongyang while it addresses our key concerns.
Last September, we
reached an understanding with the North that it will refrain from any long-range
missile flight tests as long as negotiations to improve relations are underway.
On March 7, Ambassador Kartman resumed discussions with Vice Foreign Minister
Kim Gye Gwan in New York. We will also hold talks in New York with the North
Koreans regarding our concerns on terrorism. We continue to anticipate
additional talks at a higher level about one month later.
The DPRK's
nuclear weapons-associated activities are another area of deep concern. By
freezing the North's nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and Taechon, which pose a
serious proliferation risk, the Agreed Framework is making a vital contribution
to stability. We need Congressional support for meeting our obligations under
the Framework, just as we expect the DPRK to meet its own.
We also need
your help to safeguard Americans from other dangers. Today, when America's
military is called upon to act, we often do so as part of a coalition. This
reflects the value of our security assistance programs, including International
Military Education and Training. These programs contribute to America's defense
industrial base, take advantage of opportunities to promote democratic
practices, and help friends and allies to develop armed forces that are more
capable and better able to operate with our own.
A similar rationale
underlies our voluntary contributions to international peacekeeping activities.
After all, if we do not want America's military deployed in more and more hot
spots abroad, we should do all we can to amplify the capacity of others to end
conflicts and build peace.
Another area where resources are required to
protect our interests is in responding to the threat posed by international
terror. Because of our military strength, potential enemies may try to attack us
by unconventional means, including terrorist strikes and the possible use of
chemical or biological weapons. Although the number of terrorist strikes has
declined in recent years, the severity of such strikes has increased.
In
countering these threats, we must be prepared at home and overseas. That is why
we are taking strong security measures and--at President Clinton's
direction--improving our planning for emergency response.
Through our
diplomacy and training programs, we help friendly governments to improve border
security and share information about those suspected of being affiliated with
terrorist networks. We offer rewards for terrorist suspects,and gather
information to advise and warn Americans. We strive to forge international
agreements and cooperation that will leave terrorists with no place to run,
hide, operate or stash their assets. We do all we can to bring suspected
terrorists before the bar of justice, as we have in several major cases,
including the sabotage of Pan Am 103, and the tragic 1998 bombing of two U.S.
embassies in Africa.
This year, we are proposing in the President's
budget the creation of a dedicated Center for Antiterrorism and Security
Training. This Center will help us to improve the skills of foreign security
personnel who are the front line of defense at airports, diplomatic missions and
other facilities frequented by Americans overseas.
But if Americans are
to be secure, we must also fight and win the struggle against international
crime.
Drug cartels and crime syndicates have expanded their operations
since the end of the Cold War, in part by capitalizing on the same technological
advances that have fueled legitimate international commerce.
Recognizing
the seriousness of this threat, President Clinton has launched a comprehensive
effort to integrate all facets of the federal response to international crime.
The State Department is a key partner in this initiative.
We are working
with other nations around the globe to strengthen legal codes; train police,
prosecutors and judges; close criminal front companies; halt illegal smuggling
and money laundering; negotiate extradition treaties; and bring criminals to
justice.
We are also pursuing a comprehensive strategy to fight illegal
trafficking in narcotics. This includes support for eradication, interdiction,
alternative development, seizing drug assets and extraditing drug kingpins to
the United States for trial.
These efforts are paying healthy dividends.
Last year our programs helped prevent a potential 135 tons of cocaine--with a
street value of more than $23 billion--from reaching U.S.
streets. We have helped to end opium production in Thailand and Guatemala; cut
coca production dramatically in Bolivia and Peru; and worked with foreign
governments to break up transnational drug organizations.Now, as you know, the
most urgent challenge is to support the major effort by Colombia to halt the
production and transshipment of illegal drugs from that country.
A
second overarching goal of our foreign policy is to support American prosperity
by promoting a healthy world economy and by ensuring fair treatment for American
businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers.
With this goal in mind, the
President last week asked Congress to support the Administration's agreement to
bring China into the World Trade Organization by passing Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR). I believe that the arguments in favor of PNTR are clear and
compelling.
As President Clinton put it, "economically, this agreement
is the equivalent of a one-way street." It will dramatically cut import barriers
imposed on American goods and services, without requiring us to change any of
our own current market access policies. We preserve our right to withdraw market
access in the event of a national security emergency. We make no changes in laws
controlling the export of sensitive technology. And our protections against
unfair trade practices and potential import surges are stronger with the
agreement than without it.
Conversely, if we do not enact PNTR for
China, the United States will risk losing most of the market access benefits of
the WTO agreement. China will join the WTO anyway. And our competitors in
Europe, Asia and elsewhere will reap the benefits from the agreement we
negotiated. So a vote against PNTR would simply be shooting ourselves in the
foot it would cost America jobs, not protect them.
Some critics suggest
that U.S. concerns about China's human rights record should be expressed by
denying normal relations on trade. But that approach would undercut the positive
forces that are now at work in China.
WTO accession will require China
to follow international trading rules, open its regulations to public scrutiny
and reduce the role of state-owned enterprises. This will help promote the rule
of law and spur the development of a more open society.
As we pursue
trade with China, the State Department is also working to strengthen the global
network of financial, legal,and other arrangements upon which virtually all
international business transactions depend.
This is especially important
for leading edge sectors such as Internet commerce and parts of the
telecommunications industry. For example, in the last two years we have ensured
that the most lucrative e-commerce markets -- estimated to be worth more than
$1 trillion by 2003 -- are taxed without discrimination or
costly customs duties. And we won the European Union's agreement not to
discriminate against American cellphones.
More traditional industries
also benefit. For example, in recent years, we have negotiated 35 civil aviation
agreements in support of an industry that employs more than 600,000 of our
citizens. These agreements also help cities that are now international
destinations. For example, Memphis has recently attracted dozens of new
businesses because Federal Express has expanded, and Chicago's O'Hare Airport is
expected to attract $1 billion in new regional investment
because of our new aviation agreement with Japan.
Of course, many of
America's fastest-growing markets are in developing countries where the
transition to an open economic system is incomplete. Often these countries are
held back by high rates of population growth, lack of access to health care and
education, and civil strife.
So there is still a vital need for
development assistance and for organizations such as the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), especially in the poorer nations of Africa and Asia.
For years, UNDP has been at the forefront of helping developing
countries establish democratic institutions, market economies and basic human
rights. It also plays a major role in supporting women worldwide as they strive
to gain more equal access to the levers of political and economic power.
Like UNDP, UNICEF plays an important role in countries suffering or
recovering from the devastation caused by civil or international conflict.
Around the world, UNICEF helps protect children -- a society's most vulnerable
members and its hope for the future.
President Clinton has proposed a
new tax credit to speed the development of
vaccines for killer infectious diseases --including malaria,
tuberculosis and AIDS -- that disproportionately afflict
developing nations. And we are asking for an increase of $150
million much of it from this Subcommittee -- in our worldwide fight against
these diseases. I urge your support for these requests.
I also ask your
support for our initiative, in partnership with the G- 8, to provide debt relief
for the most heavily indebted poor countries, and to use a portion of that
relief to improve basic education and health care and conserve the environment.
And I urge you to restore full funding to our support for international
family planning. This is the most effective way for us to reduce the number of
abortions and make it more likely that when children are born, they grow up
healthy and strong. The money for these programs should be provided without
restrictions on free speech and without restrictions that hamper efforts to save
lives and protect the health of women and children.
A third major
objective of our international affairs programs is to support peace. This is in
our interests because we know from the history of the past century that
unresolved disputes can erupt into violence that endangers allies, creates
economic havoc, generates refugees and entangles our own forces in combat.
Today, in the Middle East, we need steady congressional backing as we
work with the parties to find the road to a just, lasting and comprehensive
settlement. As we have seen in recent weeks, the legacy of mistrust in the
region is hard to overcome and the enemies of peace remain virulent and active.
But never before has the logic of peace been so compelling or the opportunity
for peace so clear. At this critical time, America's commitment to progress on
all tracks, and our appropriate support for those willing to take risks for
peace, must remain rock solid.
In Africa, there are a number of
conflicts but the most widely devastating is in the Congo. The Lusaka Agreement
provides a good basis for ending that war, and we have challenged its
signatories to live up to their obligations under it. The signatories have also
agreed to provide access, security and cooperation to a United Nations peace
mission. Such a mission cannot impose a solution, but it can help give the
parties the confidence they need to implement one.Meanwhile, through the African
Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), we have trained over 5,000 troops from seven
African countries to respond quickly and effectively to peacekeeping challenges.
Some of these soldiers are already participating in peacekeeping operations, and
starting in September we will expand the training from battalion level to
include brigade headquarters programs as well.
In Southeast Europe, in
partnership with the European Union and others, we have entered into a
multi-year strategy for integrating the nations of that region into the
continent's democratic mainstream. The goals of this Southeast Europe Stability
Pact are to foster peaceful, tolerant societies; build viable economies; and
transform the region from a source of instability into a full participant and
partner in the new Europe.
We are under no illusions about the
difficulty of this task. It is literally to alter the patterns of history; to
replace whirlpools of violence leading nowhere with a steady upward tide. This
won't happen unless the international community follows through on commitments
to help. And unless regional leaders make the hard choices required to create
societies based on freedom and law.
Accordingly, we welcome the European
Commission's intention to secure 11.7 billion Euros for use in promoting the
goals of the Pact during the next six years. And we are encouraged by the
commitment governments are making to curb corruption and create a good climate
for doing business.
We are also heartened by democratic progress in the
former Yugoslavia. The recent elections in Croatia were a true breakthrough,
representing a triumph for civil society and a major turning point away from
ultra- nationalism and towards democratic values.
Slovenia and Macedonia
are democratic. In Bosnia, elections have been held at all levels since Dayton.
In Montenegro, President Djukanovic is championing democracy. And increasingly
in Serbia, the people are asking when they will be given the right to choose
their leaders freely and without fear.
In Kosovo, our challenge is to
prepare the way for democracy by bringing the same determination to the task of
building peace as we did to ending conflict. In less than nine months, much
progress has been made. Large-scale violence has ended. Almost a million
refugees and displaced have returned home.
Nevertheless, the situation
remains tense and unpredictable. Backed by Kosovo's leaders, we have urged
citizens to refrain from violence, and to cooperate with KFOR, the UN mission,
and the international war crimes tribunal. And we are working with Kosovars to
prepare for municipal elections later this year.
The President's FY 2000
Supplemental and FY 2001 budget requests include our share of funds to help
Kosovo build a democratic society. Combined with the far larger contributions
received from our allies and partners, these funds will be used to help create
effective civil administration, spur economic activity, create democratic
institutions and train and equip the police.
In Bosnia, we remain deeply
committed to full implementation of the Dayton Accords. In cooperation with our
many partners, we are constantly evaluating how best to enable and encourage
Bosnians to take full responsibility for building a stable, democratic society.
The President's budget requests the resources we will need to help Bosnians
continue moving in the right direction.
A fourth purpose of our
international affairs programs is to promote values that reflect the interests,
character and ideals of the American people.
We do this because it is
right, but also because it is smart. Compared to dictatorships, democratic
nations are more likely to be stable, better able to cope with financial stress,
more reliable trading partners and less likely to generate refugees or
contribute to other global problems.
Nations that respect the rights of
their own citizens are also more likely to respect the rights of other
countries. And because America has interests in every corner of the globe, we
benefit when those interests are protected by legal systems that are independent
and fair.
One hundred years ago, the number of countries with a
government elected competitively and on the basis of universal suffrage was
zero. Today, according to Freedom House, it is 120. These include countries on
every continent, and people of virtually every culture and faith.
Over
the past half-century, we have seen nation after nation gain its freedom, but we
are not complacent. Because we know that, in many countries, the majority of
people have yet to see the economic benefits that a free society is supposed to
generate. And that many new democracies are threatened by ethnic divisions,
rising crime and weak institutions.
It is by now a truism that what's
most important is not a country's first election, but rather its second and
third. And what matters is not simply that people have the right to vote, but
that they are offered a real choice, under conditions that are truly free and
fair.
Elections, moreover, are but one essential part of democracy.
Others include markets that reward initiative; police that respect due process;
legal structures that provide justice; labor organizations that are independent;
and a press corps that is free to pursue the facts and publish the truth.
These institutions do not arise overnight. Building democracy takes many
years and much patience. It requires not only the seeds of democratic ideals,
but also the soil of democratic culture in which those seeds may take root and
grow.
That is why the United States is working within global and
regional institutions to strengthen the commitment to democratic principles and
assist governments that practice them.
I am proud of the help that
USAID, the State Department and other U.S. agencies are providing to nations in
transition. From Asia to Africa to the Andes, they are training judges, drafting
commercial codes, advancing the status of women, bolstering civil society and
otherwise helping to assemble the nuts and bolts of freedom.
I am
pleased that in this work, we have partners such as the European Union, Japan,
and a host of nongovernmental and private sector organizations that are
committed to making the new century a time of freedom and growth.
Our
task this year is to renew democratic momentum, not out of altruism, but because
democratic growth is part of the answer to many of the economic, political and
military challenges that we face.For example, we have an urgent and obvious
stake in aiding Colombian President Pastrana's plan to rescue his country--and
thereby help to rescue ours--from the scourge of cocaine.
Nigeria's
future development will determine whether it is a source of chaos and corruption
or a driving force for stability and progress throughout West Africa.
Indonesia has long been a leader in Southeast Asia. It now has a chance,
although under severe stress, to become a model of multiethnic democracy, as
well.
Aside from Russia, Ukraine is the largest and most influential of
the New Independent States. The whole region will be affected by whether it
slides backward, or continues up the democratic path.
The President's
budget proposes significant investments in each of these four key democracies
and in promoting democratic practices and values worldwide. Support for freedom
is in the proudest of American traditions--from Washington and Jefferson, to
Reagan and Clinton. I ask your help in getting a good start on what I hope will
be known, with a small "d," as the democratic century.
We complement our
support for democratic growth by promoting increased respect for human rights
and the rule of law, and by contributing to the global system of international
humanitarian response.
For example, the State Department reports
annually on human rights and religious freedom in nations around the world. We
help support work of the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights. We are the strongest backers of the international war crimes
tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans.
Especially in recent years, the
United States has emphasized advancing the status of women and girls
economically, and protecting their civil and political rights. These efforts
include initiatives to recognize the special needs of women refugees, and to end
trafficking in human beings.
The United States has also taken the lead
in a global effort to ban the worst forms of child labor, and to establish core
standards to prevent the exploitation of workers overseas,while giving American
workers a more level playing field on which to compete.
Moreover, I
believe that our citizens are proud to support our contributions to the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and other agencies and
programs that provide desperately needed assistance and save many human lives.
We save lives, as well, by our leadership in global humanitarian
demining. Our goal is to eliminate the threat posed by landmines to civilians
everywhere by the end of this new decade. We believe, as the President has said,
that children everywhere must be allowed to walk the Earth in safety.
One of our country's most successful overseas programs is the Peace
Corps. It bring skills and knowledge to those in need while creating a huge
reservoir of good will for America. President Clinton is requesting
$275 million for the Peace Corps in Fiscal Year 2001 -- an
increase of $30 million over the FY 2000 enacted level. This
would keep the Corps on the path to having 10,000 volunteers serving overseas by
2003.
Mr. Chairman, the bill for all of the programs and initiatives I
have described--plus many more I have not had time to describe--adds up to
roughly one penny for every dollar the Federal Government spends.
But
that single penny can spell the difference between hard times and good times for
our people, war and peace for our country, less and more freedom for our world.
The annual budget debate in Washington typically revolves around issues
that relate to the role of the Federal Government in such matters as education
and health care. But since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the protection of our
national security has been one of the Federal government's most basic tasks.
There can be no dispute about this. The need to defend and represent
America as a whole is what first brought our nation together. It is a
centerpiece of our Constitution. And it is a responsibility that cannot be
delegated, subcontracted, privatized or left for others to do. It is the solemn
responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches in Washington, each
according to its role.I know that Members of this Subcommittee understand this.
And I hope you will agree that American diplomacy belongs on the short list of
budget priorities for the year 2001.
There are no final frontiers for
America. We are not and have never been a status quo country. We are doers.
In the year ahead, we have the chance to add another proud chapter in
the history of American leadership, in search of peace, in defense of freedom,
on behalf of prosperity, and in service to our collective boss--the American
people. I have no doubt that if we are united in that quest, we will succeed.
Thank you very much.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 22, 2000 
