Page 1       TOP OF DOC
51–694 CC






FEBRUARY 12, 1998

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
JAY KIM, California
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
PAT DANNER, Missouri
BRAD SHERMAN, California
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
MARK KIRK, Counsel
PARKER H. BRENT, Staff Associate

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Honorable Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, Department of State
Prepared statements:
Hon. Lee Hamilton, a Representative in Congress from Indiana
Hon. Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from Indiana, plus additional material
Hon. Kevin Brady, a Representative in Congress from Texas
Hon. Madeleine Albright
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter dated October 10, 1996, from Acting Assistant Secretary Barbara Larkin to Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman
Letter dated February 11, 1998, from Mrs. Joyce Boim to Hon. Matt Salmon
Responses to questions submitted for the record from the Department of State

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman GILMAN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Are you there?
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. I hope our Secretary is there. If the press could allow us to proceed.
    Welcome, Madam Secretary, we are pleased to have you with us before the International Relations Committee.
    Today we meet on what may be the eve of battle in the Persian Gulf. To put first things first, I want to express the full support of the House for our U.S. service men and women in the Gulf who may be asked to enforce the U.N. mandate regarding Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. Our hearts and prayers are with them. As you and Secretary of Defense Cohen correctly stated, the will of the international community is clear and the choice between peace and war now rests with the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.
    Many of us are concerned about our plans after the air campaign against Iraq. I share Majority Leader Lott's concern that bombing the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons that we can find may not be enough. Specifically, I would refer to six further steps not involving U.S. troops to further our goals in Iraq. Those steps include: the establishment of Radio Free Iraq; the lifting of sanctions in liberated portions of Iraq; the imposition of countrywide no-fly and no-drive zones, especially for the Republican Guard; U.S. recognition of a coalition of Iraqi opposition groups as a legitimate government of Iraq; the release of portions of frozen Iraqi assets to those groups; and export licenses and other permissions necessary for the purchase of arms by those groups.
    Senator McCain outlined such steps on Monday. Those measures would lay the foundation for a long-term struggle against the Iraqi regime led by Iraqis. It would show Saddam that our nation and our allies will step up the long-term pressure, both outside and inside Iraq, forcing their government to return to international norms and the rule of law.
    I hope that you will work with the Congress on a long-term strategy for Iraq, as we have in the past. I think you'll find strong, bipartisan support for such efforts.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I turn to another part of the world, Madam Secretary, where U.S. service men and women are deployed, and that's in Bosnia. In years past, the Administration lacked some candor regarding our military commitment. The American people, as you recall, were promised quite directly, and in this very room before our Committee, that our forces would be in Bosnia for only 1 year. We were told then that they would depart Bosnia on December 20, 1996. That date was pushed back with another set of promises to leave Bosnia by July 1998.
    Two months ago, our President finally accorded the American people full candor when he asked for an open-ended commitment of our troops in the Balkans. As I understand our policy, we intend to remain in the Balkans until we reach an ''end-state'' in Bosnia, not an ''end-date''. And while I thank you for the candor, we must now ask what specifically is the end-state we seek to achieve in Bosnia? How much is it going to cost us in defense and foreign aid dollars? And what are the prospects for reaching our goals in the coming years? I hope your statement will specifically touch on some of these points.
    Closer to home, Haiti is one of the most vexing in foreign policy engagements that we face. At our hearing in December, we acknowledged the Administration's initial success in restoring constitutional government, removing the army, creating a new civilian police force, marshaling international aid, and launching a structural reform program in Haiti. Our objective in Haiti, of course, is to have a free and stable good neighbor. Despite investing approximately $2 billion—we still don't have an accurate, up-to-date figure from the Administration.
    The situation continues to deteriorate. Former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake's efforts at mediating the crisis were not successful. There is no Prime Minister. The Government of Haiti ceased to function. The privatization program that they started is stalled. The dispute over the fraudulent April 1997 elections still remains deadlocked. Haiti, on your watch, became a major drug shipping conduit into the United States. The Haitian National Police, which initially showed so much promise, was politicized and now is corrupted by drug money.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Administration recently informed our Committee of plans to double aid to Haiti. With hundreds of millions in unspent aid dollars in the pipeline to Haiti, I don't see how we can justify that request, and we look to you for some rationale.
    Our Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton, correctly stated that Haiti's political leaders failed their people by failing to set aside patronage and personality-driven politics. They ultimately are responsible for their actions and for resolving the crisis. However, the Administration is inextricably a party to the current state of affairs in Haiti.
    Stern lectures fail to move President Preval's patron, former President Aristide, and the various factions in the Haitian parliament, to try to end this crisis. We sincerely hope that you will be asking Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott to come before our Committee so that we can more thoroughly examine, at a hearing, our policies with regard to Haiti.
    Concerning our war on drugs, Colombia—one of the oldest democratic nations in our hemisphere—is a major source of drugs for the United States. And today, regrettably, it teeters on becoming a narco-state, seriously threatening its neighbors and our vital national interests.
    The narco-guerrillas in Colombia, designated by the State Department as foreign-based terrorist organizations, take in $100 million a month facilitating the drug trade. I regret to say that misguided State Department policies over the last 2 years denied vital counter-narcotics military assistance to Colombia, which should have been provided to advance our vital national security interests.
    I do want to thank you for your appeal to Colombian FARC guerrilla groups to release three American missionaries, David Mankins, Mark Rich and Richard Tenenoff, who were seized over 5 years ago. We owe it to them and their families to press for their release and we commend you for your continued efforts.
    Turning to China, Wei Jinsheng testified before our Committee recently and expressed his deep concern that the Administration has no intention of strongly supporting the consideration of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, of a resolution regarding China's human rights record. He, along with other human rights experts, believes that the recently released State Department human rights report, I use his term, beautified China's human rights record and set the stage for repeat of the Administration's weakened efforts in Geneva. We share his concerns.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to commend the President's intention to visit sub-Saharan Africa next month. It's time that the President did make this kind of a trip, however, we need to back up the renewed interest in Africa with solid policies. Africa is much too important for only hype. Passage of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, I think, is a good start to reshaping our policy toward the nations of Africa, and we hope the Administration will be as supportive as you've been in promoting its passage.
    Madam Secretary, in closing, I'd like to recognize Mr. Hamilton for an opening statement. I've spoken with Mr. Hamilton about limiting opening statements, and given your limited time, we'll move directly to the Secretary's short oral testimony so that we can give as many Members of our Committee as much time as possible for their questions.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, we're very pleased to have you with us this morning. I will make just a few quick comments. I know that you are requesting money in the budget to pay off our U.N. arrears, and also in another forum, making a request for the IMF funding. I strongly agree with you and the Administration that those monies are urgently needed, and I hope we can find a way to provide them early rather than later.
    Now the key issue, of course, is probably going to be Mexico City and the family planning issue. We simply have to find a solution to that. We cannot go on with our entire international programs being held up because of that issue. I know it's very difficult. It's going to take people of good will to work through it, but I think all of us have to recognize that we risk a global financial meltdown if we don't get the IMF funding, and we certainly risk a very grave situation in the United Nations if we cannot move forward on payment of our arrears. So I want to offer to help in any way that I can to try to move that forward.
    I also note that you've requested an increase in the international affairs account. I'm very pleased with that because we've suffered quite a bit in recent years with the decline in that account. I think we've begun to turn it around now, and I'm grateful for your leadership on that.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    On this Iraqi question, let me ask you, sometime this morning or sometime soon, to respond to the criticisms that the Chairman just expressed, and I think you face what is now becoming a strong advocacy effort to develop an alternative policy on Iraq.
    The Chairman suggested, I think, several additional steps that could be taken with respect to Iraq. If I understand our policy in Iraq today, as that policy has been for some years, it has been to contain Saddam Hussein. That is not a policy that pleases us. All of us, I think, would like to see him removed, but you really have a question here of resources and ways and means, what you're willing to expend in order to achieve your purposes. The strategic interests of the United States are served if we contain Saddam Hussein, just as the strategic interests of the United States were served when we contained the Soviet Union for many years, even though we didn't like what was going on in the Soviet Union.
    I understand that Saddam Hussein created this crisis, as you have said many times, and all he has to do to end the crisis is to comply with the requirements of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. I understand that he's continued to build up weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe that the United States or the world can accept Iraq's defiance of the U.N. resolutions and simply sit on the sidelines while they go ahead and develop these weapons, so I think military action is becoming more likely each day. All of us would like, of course, to see it resolved diplomatically, but only if Saddam Hussein complies. And so I'm prepared to support the use of force if the other options to change Iraq's behavior have not worked.
    I think it is terribly important for the President now, and for you, to define very carefully realistic, achievable objectives for the use of force in Iraq. I do think that the use of force can diminish the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and diminish Iraq's ability to pressure or threaten its neighbors. The strategic interests of the United States will be served by containment.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, Mr. Gilman and others are suggesting a number of alternative policies. They ought not to be rejected out of hand, but those who support those policies must be prepared to support the resources necessary to bring them about. You have indicated some interest in indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal. Others argue that we should recognize a provisional government in exile, a democratic opposition funded by frozen Iraqi assets. Others have said we ought to try to take away Iraq's U.N. seat. Others have said we should lift sanctions in the territory in Iraq that is not under Saddam Hussein's control. Others have advocated a kind of Radio Free Iraq, making radio and television broadcasts available to Iraqis. Some are suggesting we provide military equipment and logistical support to the opposition, and use American air power in support of it.
    I think, quite frankly, there has been a lot of loose rhetoric with regard to some of these alternative policies, but several of them deserve very serious consideration. And the Administration, I think, has a very heavy responsibility now to articulate with very great precision what our purposes are in Iraq, how our national interests are served, what we're prepared to do to achieve those national interests, and what happens after a period of 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 days of bombing: what we can accomplish by that, what we cannot accomplish by it, and what the follow-on to military action may be.
    I support what the Administration has done and said with regard to Iraq, but I can see the debate coming now on the followup to military action in Iraq, and I think it's important for you and others to begin to articulate, with some specificity, which of these alternative policies would serve American interests and which would not.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. And now it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce our 65th Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who was, I would remind our Members, unanimously confirmed by the Senate as the highest ranking woman in the U.S. Government. Secretary Albright, you may proceed. You may summarize your statement or give your full statement, whichever you deem appropriate.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, again, to you and Members of the Committee. I want to begin by thanking you for breakfast and for the excellent discussion that we had earlier. I can only hope, although I'm sure it's in vain, that you've exhausted your supply of hard questions, and now we're just going to deal with easy ones.
    I will not read my written statement, which is quite long, almost an epic. But I encourage you to review it, because it deals with some of the vital issues in parts of the world that I cannot include in my oral remarks and still honor my time.
    Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you personally for your unfailing courtesy and friendship, and for the very professional way that you have and are conducting the Committee's business. I also extend my deep respects to your Ranking Member, Representative Hamilton, who is entering the final year of a magnificent career in public service, and I, for one, cannot imagine this dais without you, Lee. And, you will be sorely missed.
    More generally, I congratulate all the Members of this Committee for the interest and dedication you've shown to the defense of American interest and the promotion of American values overseas. The work of some committees may be easier to explain to the American people, but none is more important to them. But whether one is a storekeeper, a stockbroker, a farmer or a homemaker, you have a stake in the health and growth of the world economy. Whether your frame of reference is the Battle of the Bulge or Inchon or Quezon or Desert Storm, you know that American foreign policy can make the difference between war and peace, victory and defeat. Whether you travel the world or hardly ever leave your neighborhood, you will care whether we stop international terrorists before they strike. Whether you live in a city, a suburb or a small town, you will want us to crack down even harder on the international drug kingpins who grow rich peddling poison to our kids.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There are far too many connections between our foreign policy and the lives of our people to list this morning. Because of the revolution in communications, transportation and technology, our citizens now live global lives. Our country has interests in every region and on every continent, and more and more, what happens anywhere will matter everywhere.
    If we're to be secure in such a world, we must seize the opportunity that history has presented to bring nations closer together around basic principles of democracy, free markets, respect for the law and a commitment to peace.
    America's place in this system is at the center, and our challenge is to keep the connections between regions and among the most prominent nations strong and sure. We must also help other nations become full partners by lending a hand to those building democracy, emerging from poverty, or recovering from conflict. We must summon the spine to deter the support to isolate and the strength to defeat those who run roughshod over the rights of others. And we must aspire not simply to maintain the status quo, for that has never been good enough for America. Abroad as at home, we must aim for higher standards so that the benefits of growth and the protections of law are shared not only by the lucky few, but by the hardworking many. All this requires a lot of heavy lifting and we will insist that others do their fair share, if we want to protect our people, grow our economy, improve our lives, and safeguard the freedoms we cherish. We must stamp heretofore the unnamed era with a clear identity grounded in democracy, dedicated to justice, and committed to peace.
    Mr. Chairman, normally when I review U.S. policies, I begin with Europe and Asia. This morning I want to break with tradition and start with the crossroads linking those continents, the vast territory that stretches from the Suez and Bosporus in the west, to the Caucasus and Caspian in the north, to the Bay of Bengal in the southeast. I do so because as much as any region, the choices made here during the remaining months of this century will determine the shape of the next. They will decide, for example, whether weapons of mass destruction cease to imperil the Gulf and south Asia, whether the oil and gas fields of the Caucasus and central Asia become reliable sources of energy, whether the opium harvests of death in Burma and Afghanistan are shut down, and whether the New Independent States will become strong and successful democracies.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Developing an integrated approach to this varied part of the world is a major challenge, but we approach it with a set of common principles. First, we must avoid a modern version of the so-called great game in which past scrambles for power led to war and misery. Each nation's sovereignty must be respected and the goal of each should be stability and prosperity that is widely shared. Second, cooperation must extend to security. Nations must have the wisdom and the will to oppose the agents of terror, proliferation and crime. Third, neighbors must live as neighbors by settling differences fairly and peacefully. Fourth, the international community must nurture inter-ethnic tolerance and respect for human rights including women's rights.
    U.S. policy is to promote and practice these principles, and to urge others to embrace the reality that cooperation by all will yield for all a future of greater prosperity, dignity and peace. That is certainly our message in the Middle East where we continue to seek progress toward a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement.
    Last month, President Clinton presented ideas to Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu in an effort to break the current stalemate, recognizing that the parties, given the level of their distrust, might respond to us even if they remain reluctant to respond to each other. The issue now is whether the leaders are prepared to make the kind of decisions that will make it possible to put the process back on track. Indeed, we have to ask, are they prepared to promote their common interests as partners, or are they determined to return to an era of zero sum relations? The stakes are high, and that's why we've been involved in such an intensive effort to protect the process from collapsing.
    The stakes are also high in the confrontation between the international community and Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an aggressor who has used weapons of mass destruction before and, if allowed, will surely use or threaten to use them again. Since the end of the Gulf War, he has not had that opportunity because he has been trapped in a strategic box, hemmed by the four walls of U.N. sanctions, weapons inspections, monitoring and enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones. Now he wants to escape that box, not through the front door by complying with Security Council resolutions, but by sneaking out the back with weapons of mass destruction still in hand and aggressive intentions unchanged. At the same time, Saddam is telling everyone who will listen that the blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people rests with the United States and the United Nations, and not him. Mr. Chairman, since today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday, let me paraphrase something he once said in a debate, Saddam Hussein's arguments are, ''as thin as boiling soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that starved to death.''
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The truth is that Saddam doesn't give a fig about the Iraqi people. He has tortured and brutalized them for years. Meanwhile, the United States has led efforts through the United Nations to make foods and medicines available to the Iraqi people. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed to expand these efforts and we are for that.
    Saddam Hussein's dream is the world's nightmare. He wants it both ways, to see U.N. sanctions end while his weapons of mass destruction programs continue. In response, the Security Council has insisted repeatedly and unanimously that Iraq stop resisting and start cooperating fully with U.N. inspectors. Nations from the Gulf to Europe to Africa and Asia have expressed their determination that Iraq comply with Security Council resolutions, and a growing number of nations have publicly backed the possible use of force.
    And there is a clear recognition among countries everywhere that responsibility for the current impasse and for its potential consequence is Iraq's alone. As President Clinton has made clear, Saddam does not have a menu of choices, he has one: Iraq must comply with the Council's resolutions and provide U.N. inspectors with the unfettered access they need to do their job. There is still time for a diplomatic solution, but if Iraq's behavior does not change very soon, we will have no choice but to take strong measures. Not pinpricks, but substantial strikes that will reduce Saddam's capacity to threaten Iraq's neighbors and the world.
    And we must, and we will, reserve the right to use force again should Saddam ever seek to reconstitute his nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or the missiles to deliver them. Make no mistake, we have authority to do this, the responsibility to do this, and the means and the will.
    The strategies we apply in places such as the Gulf, the Caucuses and Central Asia, show how much the political map has changed, but the importance of our relationship with Europe has not. Today we are working with Europe to meet global challenges such as proliferation, crime and the environment. And we're working in Europe to realize this century's most elusive dream, a Europe that is whole, free, prosperous, and at peace. That effort is reflected in the Dayton Accords.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Around Christmas, I went to Bosnia with President Clinton and Senator Dole, and many Members of Congress. We found a nation that remains deeply divided but where multiethnic institutions are once again beginning to function. Economic growth is accelerating, indicted war criminals are being tried, more refugees are returning, and a new Bosnian-Serb Government is committed to implementing Dayton.
    More slowly than we foresaw, but surely as we hoped, the infrastructure of Bosnian peace is gaining shape and the psychology of reconciliation is taking hold. But if we turn our backs on Bosnia now, as some urge, the confidence we are building would erode, and the result could well be a return to genocide and war.
    Quitting is not the American way. We should continue to play an appropriate role in Bosnia as long as our help is needed, our allies and friends do their share, and most importantly, the Bosnian people are striving to help themselves. That is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing, for it is the only way to ensure that when our troops do leave, they leave for good.
    Mr. Chairman, one of our most important foreign policy objectives is to build an inclusive Asia-Pacific community based on stability, shared interests and the rule of law. To this end, we have fortified our core alliances, crafted new defense guidelines with Japan, and embarked on Four Party talks to create a basis for lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. We have also intensified our dialog with China, achieving progress on proliferation, security cooperation and other matters, while maintaining our principles and respect for human rights.
    Engagement is not the same as endorsement. We continue to have sharp differences with China, but we believe that the best way to narrow them is to encourage China's full and responsible participation in the international system.
    Finally, we've been working with the IMF to respond to the financial crisis in East Asia. Our approach is clear. To recover from instability, the nations affected must reform. And if they are willing to do so, we will help. East Asia includes some of our closest allies and friends including South Korea, which faces a large and well-armed military force across the DMZ.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The region also includes some of our best costumers for U.S. products and services, and if they can't buy, we can't sell. Moreover, since the IMF functions as sort of intergovernmental credit union, its efforts to assist East Asian economies won't cost U.S. taxpayers a nickel.
    Still, there are some who say that we should disavow the IMF and abandon our friends, letting the chips or dominos fall where they may. It is possible, if we were to do so, that East Asia's financial troubles would not spread and hurt our own economy, and that our decision to walk away would not be misunderstood, and a wave of anti-American sentiment would not be unleashed, and new security threats would not arise in this region where 100,000 American troops are deployed. All this is possible, but I would not want to bet Americans' security and jobs, and the jobs of your constituents, on that proposition, for it would be a very, very bad bet. Even with full backing for the IMF, and diligent reforms in East Asia, recovery will take time and further tremors are possible. The best way to end the crisis is to back reforms now being implemented and approve our 15 percent share of resources for the IMF, work to keep the virus from spreading and develop strategies to prevent this kind of instability from arising again.
    Mr. Chairman, closer to home, we meet at a time of heightened emphasis in our policy toward the Americas. This attention is warranted not only by proximity of geography, but by proximity of values, for today, with one lonely exception, every government in the hemisphere is freely elected. In the weeks ahead, we will be preparing for the second Summit of the Americas, pressing for democratic change in Cuba and intensifying our efforts in Haiti where the challenge of creating a democratic culture and a market economy where neither has ever existed, is especially daunting. And this morning I stress it is in our interests, and it is in our character, not only to continue but to increase our investment in helping Haitians to settle their differences, meet basic human needs, build democratic institutions, and lay the foundation for economic growth.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We also are taking a fresh approach to Africa, which President Clinton, the first President since Jimmy Carter, will visit soon. During my own recent trip, I was impressed by the opportunity that exists to help integrate that continent into the world economy, build democracy, and gain valuable allies in the fight against global threats. To frame a new American approach to the new Africa, we will be seeking your support for the President's initiative to promote justice in development in the Great Lakes, and we will be urging the rest of Congress to follow this Committee's lead by approving the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
    Mr. Chairman, many of our initiatives are directed, as I've discussed, at particular countries or regions, but others are best considered in global terms. For example, it's a core purpose of U.S. foreign policy to halt the spread and possible use of weapons of mass destruction which remain the most serious threat to the security of our people. To this end, we will be encouraging Russia's ratification of START II, set up consent to the U.S. Test Ban Treaty, and strengthen biological weapons protocol and legislation to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention.
    A second overarching goal of our foreign policy is to promote a dynamic world economy in which American genius and productivity receive their due. Through bipartisan efforts, we have put our fiscal house in order. Our economy is strong and I'm pleased that American diplomacy has contributed much to this record. To stay on this upward road, we will again be seeking fast-track negotiating authority to enable the President to reach new trade agreements that will benefit our economy, workers, farmers and business people.
    A third global objective is to meet and defeat international crime. Here we are using a full box of diplomatic tools, from building judicial systems that work, to irradiating drugs, to speaking frankly with foreign leaders about the need to close ranks. There is no silver bullet, but as our increased budget requests show, we are pushing ahead hard. Our purpose is to assemble a kind of global neighborhood watch which denies criminals the space they need to operate and without which they cannot survive.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We also have a major foreign policy interest in assuring a healthy global environment, so we will be working this year to build on the Kyoto Protocol which was an essential first step toward an effective international approach to controlling global climate change. We need now to ensure meaningful participation by developing countries.
    We must also ensure that our foreign policy reflects the ideals and values of our people. Accordingly, we will support democratic aspirations and institutions however and wherever we can effectively do so, and we will advocate increased respect for human rights, vigorously promote religious freedom, and firmly back the International War Crimes Tribunal.
    Mr. Chairman, American leadership is built on American ideals, backed by our economic and military might, and supported by our diplomacy. Unfortunately, despite progress made last year with bipartisan support from this Committee, the resources we need to support our diplomacy are stretched thin.
    Over the past decade, funding in real terms has declined, personnel levels are down, training has been cut, we face critical infrastructure needs, and we have seen the share of our nation's wealth that is used to support democracy and prosperity around the globe shrink steadily so that now, among industrialized nations, we are dead last.
    I urge the Committee to support the President's budget request in its entirety, remembering as you do so that although international affairs amount to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget, it may well account for 50 percent of the history that is written about our era, and it affects the lives of 100 percent of the American people.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the best way for us to begin this year's work is to finish last year's. And last year, Congress and the Administration worked together to develop legislation to restructure our foreign policy institutions and spur U.N. reform while paying our long overdue bills. Unfortunately, that spirit of constructive cooperation broke apart during the final days of the session.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    A small group of House Members, including some Members of this Committee, for whom I have always had deep respect, blocked final passage of those measures along with the needed financing for the International Monetary Fund. They did so not because they opposed the bills, or had credible arguments against them, they simply wanted to take valuable legislation hostage. And as the price for releasing the hostages, they insisted that the Administration agree to their unrelated position on international family planning programs. I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that we can end the gridlock preventing progress on these issues.
    With respect to the international family planning, there are strongly held beliefs on all sides, and I urge all sides to agree to a fair debate and a vote on the merits. That's the democratic way and that's the approach that best serves the interests of our country.
    But the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that the victims of the current game of legislative blackmail are our shared constituents, the American people. Without reorganization, we can't improve our foreign policy effectiveness as fast as we would like, and the failure to pay our U.N. bills has already cost us. Last December, the General Assembly voted on a plan that could have cut our share of U.N. assessments by roughly $100 million every year. Because of what happened, we lost that opportunity, and our taxpayers lost those savings. But paying our U.N. bills is about more than money, it's also about principles and our vital interests. We have important business to conduct at the United Nations, from dealing with Saddam Hussein to punishing genocide and we know the organization is not, as some have seemed to suggest, an alien presence on U.S. soil.
    The United Nations was made in America. Our predecessors brought it together, helped write its charter, and approved its rules.
    Mr. Chairman, the best American is a leader and not a debtor. Let us act soon to put our U.N. arrears behind us, restore America's full influence within the U.N. system, move ahead with U.N. reform, and use the United Nations as its founders intended, to make the world safer, more prosperous and more humane.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, half a century ago this month, a Communist coup in my native Czechoslovakia altered forever the course of my life and prompted, as well, an urgent reappraisal by the west of what we would require to defend freedom in Europe. In that testing year, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress approved the Marshall Plan, laid the groundwork for NATO, helped create the Organization for American States, established the Voice of America, recognized the infant state of Israel, airlifted sustaining aid to blockaded Berlin, and helped an embattled Turkey and Greece remain on freedom's side of the Iron Curtain. Secretary of State Marshall called this a brilliant demonstration of the American people's ability to meet the great responsibility of their new position.
    Some believe that Americans have changed and that we are now too inward-looking to shoulder such responsibility. In 1998, we have the opportunity to prove the cynic wrong and Congressmen and Congresswomen, I believe we will.
    Mr. Chairman, today, from the streets of Sarajevo to the Arabian and Korean Peninsulas, to classrooms in Africa, boardrooms in Asia, and courtrooms at The Hague, the influence of American leadership is as deep and as beneficial as the world has ever seen. That is not the result of some foreign policy theory; it is a reflection of American character.
    We Americans have a big advantage because we know who we are and what we believe. We have a purpose, and like the farmer's faith that seeds and rain will cause the crops to grow, it is our faith that if we are true to our principles, we will succeed. Let us then do honor to that faith in this year of decision, let us reject the temptation of complacency, and assume, not with complaint, but with welcome, the leader's role established by our forebears. And by living up to the heritage of our past, let us together and with God's help, fulfill the promise of our future so that we may enter the new century free and respected, prosperous and at peace.
    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for listening to me and I'm now pleased to respond to your questions.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Albright appears in the appendix.]
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your thorough and full analysis of the world problems facing our——
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
    Mr. BURTON. I'd just like to say that the Secretary of State spoke for approximately 30 minutes, and we have a large number of Members that would like to ask questions. I would like to ask that the Secretary of State be asked to stay a little bit longer. I understand that she was going to be leaving at noon, but a large number of us would like to ask questions, so, if she could stay longer, we'd sure appreciate it.
    Chairman GILMAN. What is the Secretary's time——
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I'd be happy to stay.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Madam Secretary, what specific actions has Russia taken to stop or slow down the flow of technology to Iran to prevent that nation from developing and deploying medium- and long-range ballistic missiles that we know they're involved in? Have the Russians put into effect the Chernomyrdin resolution that was adopted January 22 on enhancing control over dual-purpose commodities and services related to mass destruction weapons and delivery vehicles?
    State Department officials have repeatedly told our staff and others that the resolution went into effect on the same day it was issued, January 22 of this year. Yet the decree, unlike any other decree issued by President Yeltsin or Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is not yet public. Its text is not available to anyone in our government, so how can it be argued that this still-secret decree is considered the centerpiece of the Russian effort to control the export of dual-use items to Iran, and furthermore, State has asked the Russians for further tightening of Russian dual-use export controls. Can you tell us, is there any evidence that this has occurred?
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we have shared your concern about the possibility of Russia-Iran cooperation. It is a subject that is raised every time that the President meets with President Yeltsin, or Vice President Gore meets with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin or when I meet with Prime Minister Premakof, so this is an issue of major importance and we have established this Wisner-Kopchef channel in order to be able to work on the issue, and, also, our allies have raised this issue with the Russian's leadership.
    As you have stated, the Russian Government did take a very important step on January 22 when Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed an executive order providing a new legal basis for stopping transfers for missile programs, and programs for weapons of mass destruction. And we are monitoring this very carefully. It is not a secret decree because there was a press statement to it, it's just that we have not gotten the copy, I'm not sure exactly why, but the truth is that it's not a secret decree.
    We are looking very carefully as to how it is being implemented, and this will be addressed again in the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission meeting this March. But we agree with you, this is a serious issue, we want it dealt with, and we are looking at it very carefully.
    Chairman GILMAN. Then, essentially, the decree is in effect and being enforced. Is that correct?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. It is our understanding that it is, and we are monitoring how it is being implemented, and it is going to be a subject of discussion at the Gore-Chernomyrdin meetings.
    Chairman GILMAN. Madam Secretary, the Palestinian Broadcast Authority, a direct arm of the Palestinian Authority, broadcast what could only be called vicious anti-semitic articles and accusations. And those broadcasts, not only fill their listeners with outrageous distortions, for example, denying the extent of the Jewish losses in the Holocaust or that there is any Jewish connection to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount Jerusalem. These statements, of course, undermine Israel's confidence that its peace partner is sincere in truly wanting peace with Israel.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Are you aware of these broadcasts? And have you discussed them, if you are, with Palestinian officials? And does the Palestinian Broadcast Authority receive any funding from us, and what further can we do to stop this kind of vitriol?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, obviously any anti-Semitic statements or publications or broadcasts are repugnant and unacceptable to us. We have raised this issue with the Palestinians, and we will continue to press them to eliminate that kind of rhetoric from their media. We have made the point very clearly.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, and Madam Secretary, one last question, how can our nation be taken seriously in Colombia in the war against drugs when our own State Department policy decertifying Colombia had cut off vital anti-narcotics military assistance to the excellent anti-narcotics police, and our annual operating drug budget for Colombia is equivalent to just a month of income for the narco-guerrillas?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned, obviously, about the drug situation in Colombia and have spent a great deal of time on it. We are trying to work with them to have the most effective use of the funding. We do not have a very large budget all together for narcotics funding within the State Department—about $200 million—that has to be distributed. And we believe that we are working very closely, obviously, with General McCaffrey on the issue and we are making some progress in Colombia.
    Chairman GILMAN. I would hope that you would pay close attention to the need that the Colombian military and police have indicated for the helicopters that have the ability of flying at high altitudes in their efforts to irradiate the massive Colombian product that comes across our borders.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, on that issue, let me say that I think there is some dispute as to whether those helicopters are needed or not. General McCaffrey, with whom I spoke just before I came to have breakfast with you, discussed this issue and he believes that they are not necessary. And as I said, we have this budget of $230 million or so, and $50 million of that would have to be spent on the helicopters, and it would have a cascading effect on our drug programs throughout the world.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Well, I might add with regard to that, we for 2 years have been promising these helicopters to the military and police who have been doing an outstanding job in Colombia in eradicating and trying to restrict their production, and I hope you will take another look at that.
    Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, let me just raise three things with you, and then you can comment on them as you see fit. First of all, there's a report in the Post this morning about the Russians selling Iraq germ warfare materials. I think a comment from you at this point might be helpful.
    Second, I'd like you to comment on Iran, not Iraq, but Iran. There does seem to be a change in tone in the relationship. What do you think the next steps may be with regard to the U.S. relationship with Iran, if any?
    And then, third, the point I raised in my opening comments, in that we have now clearly an effort to set out an alternative policy with respect to Iraq. The idea of that policy, basically, is to aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now those advocating that position are very careful to say they don't want to send a large number of American troops over there to get the job done. There's broad agreement on that point. But they do come forward with a number of specific things that I identified a little earlier, I'd be glad to repeat them, but I don't want to take too much time, and there were some things I did not mention in my comments. At some point, and maybe this is not the forum, but at some point, I think it's going to be very important for you and the President to address these alternative policies that are being suggested with regard to Iraq.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. On the question of the germ warfare story that we saw this morning, much in the story is based on information that is not available to the U.S. Government. This is not surprising.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    UNSCOM is an independent organization and they have some information that we do not. We assume that UNSCOM will follow up aggressively on the question of the biological fermenter, as it does on all the leads. And as we've said before, we value the objectivity and independence of UNSCOM, and trust it to carry out a thorough investigation. I don't have a comment on possible discussions between Russians and Iraqis on the fermenter. Russia, of course, has been working to strengthen its export controls, and we have encouraged the Russians to investigate incidences as we become aware of them.
    For example, there was another case—and this was cited in the article—of gyroscopes and when we became aware of that, the Russians did investigate it. And information available to us does not indicate that the Russian Government was involved in that, in what appears to have been a smuggling operation. We have had a long discussion with the Russians on non-proliferation and dual-use technology, as I just described, as we talked about Iran, and we have no independent confirmation. And the Russians, as of today, have denied this, but we certainly will follow it up because we see it as a very serious issue.
    Mr. HAMILTON. The Russians have denied this story?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. They have. On Iran, I do think that as the President has said, we are intrigued, interested, in the changes with the election of President Khatami, and we have followed carefully what he has said, and we are looking at ways that, as the President said in one of his remarks, about the possibility of some exchanges as President Khatami had spoken about. We do have serious problems with Iran, and they are, basically, their support for terrorism, their desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and their lack of support for the Middle East peace process. And we do think that a dialog between the governments is useful, that the only way to overcome these kinds of problems is in that particular way. But I can assure you, we're looking very carefully at the subject because, as we've said, the election was intriguing and interesting, and is worth us following.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    On the Iraq issue, Mr. Chairman, I think that—Mr. Hamilton—we have worked very hard to try to define our goals in a reasonable way, and I don't want to repeat what you said in your opening statement because I think you have accurately stated that. There is no question in our minds that Iraq would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and I have stated in speeches and will do so again, that we look forward to working with the post-Saddam regime. The current crisis that we have, and it is a crisis about our vital national interests, is a threat of these weapons of mass destruction and a threat to the neighbors.
    We have in the past supported Iraqi opposition, and we are interested in supporting them in effective ways in the future. I think on the various suggestions that Chairman Gilman made, they are of the kind, there are answers to that, if I might take a couple of minutes on it here.
    On Radio Free Iraq, there is broadcasting from Kuwait into Iraq by opposition groups, but we should be realistic about how effective that can be. On indicting him as a war criminal, there is an indict campaign and we have collected some documents, so have the Europeans, but it's something that I think really bears looking into. On the no-fly zones, and no-drive zones, we have significant no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, as well as restriction on the movements of the Republican Guard and I don't think it's appropriate here to comment on the advantages or disadvantages of extending those restrictions.
    I think there are many more things we should talk about. I do think that it's important for the American people to understand that we would like to resolve this particular issue through diplomatic means, but if we can't, we are prepared to use force, and, as I said, it would be substantial and we need to talk more about what happens afterwards.
    Chairman GILMAN. Madam Secretary, I regret I'm being called to a leadership meeting. I'm going to ask Henry Hyde, our senior Member, to conduct the remainder of the hearing, and Mr. Hyde is being called on to question at this time, also. Mr. Hyde.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HYDE. [presiding] Madam Secretary of State, I want to congratulate you on your lovely pin that you're wearing.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you.
    Mr. HYDE. I think that these little things are important and I——
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Read my pins.
    Mr. HYDE. Yes, read my pin. I have come to an awareness that the use of language with this Administration is artful, and one must be very careful in interpreting what somebody said. For example, you say that there is a small group of Members of this Committee for whom you always had respect.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Have, have, have.
    Mr. HYDE. ''Had,'' h-a-d, is what your statement said.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I think it was a typing error.
    Mr. HYDE. Oh, fine, good.
    I didn't want to read more into that because my respect for you is undiminished.
    But speaking of the use of words, on page 7 of your statement, you say, ''unless Iraq's policies change, we will have no choice but to take strong measures. Not pinpricks, but substantial strikes that reduce,'' and that's the operative word, ''Saddam's capacity to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, and diminish his ability to threaten Iraq's neighbors and the world.''
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Why not eliminate? Why do you use the word reduce? In other words, is this not a retrenchment from a previous position held by the President and this Administration that Saddam's ability to create weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated? If it's only reduced, we'll never be safe. This will go on in perpetuity, and it would seem to me that at some point the Administration, Congress, all of us collectively, ought to come to the conclusion that his ability to create biological warfare, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, which he's used already, has to be eliminated, not merely reduced. Am I reading this wrong?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman Hyde, let me say that it would be our great desire to eliminate them. The inspectors that are part of the U.N. set-up are the best method for eliminating weapons of mass destruction because they verify their elimination and then monitor that they stay eliminated. And that is why we are working so hard to have unfettered, unconditional access by this group of the United Nations that are really the eyes and ears of the world as they look at what Saddam has.
    I think it's very important if and when one goes into a military operation to be as specific as we possibly can and not promise that which we cannot do. This will be a substantial strike if the President makes the decision to use force, but I think that it's very hard to tell you that we can totally eliminate them. It is our goal to ultimately make sure that he cannot use these weapons or that he cannot reconstitute them. And it's a serious issue, very important to all of us. We would like to eliminate them. We have to work on ways to have that happen.
    Mr. HYDE. To eliminate them would mean ground troops, it would mean going into the country and eliminating him, and that's the one thing that you really don't want to commit to, evidently, because reducing his ability to create weapons of mass destruction leaves him still able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, perhaps at a lessened capacity, but any capacity in the hands of an aggressive dictator, tyrant, like that, keeps the whole Middle East, not to say the economies of the world, at risk.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Just one last thing, and this more of a wish, perhaps, than a question. I think it's critically important for the President and for all of us, yourself as well, to impress upon the American people the significance of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. A lot of people have a very small idea of what's involved. The economy of the world is involved. The well-being of the world, World War III is involved, simply because he is a constant threat as long as he is there and as long as he has any capacity to create weapons of mass destruction, for the whole Middle East, where, as we know, the world's greatest petroleum reserves exist. So, I just think that people have to take their minds off domestic issues totally and take a look at this boiling situation in the Middle East which could be the introduction to World War III.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman Hyde, we have been focused on this hourly and have taken a great deal of time with it. Let me just say, the President has said, basically, that we have three choices: We have the choice of doing nothing, we have the choice of remounting a force the size of Desert Storm, or, we have a choice of doing the line that we are following. With 500,000 troops there in 1991, Saddam Hussein was not eliminated, and the question is, frankly, whether the American people would support a force of that size, and whether that is what people are prepared to do. I think that is a subject that as Americans, we have to think about. I do not disagree with you, at all, about the threat.
    Mr. HYDE. They're not prepared now, but it will take leadership, it will take a sales job, but I think it's critically important if World War III is to be avoided, that people know what the stakes are.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. And you are prepared to support such a course.
    Mr. HYDE. Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, let me thank you for today's testimony. More importantly, thank you for your service to our country, which has been exemplary.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to ask two questions based upon, in part, a statement that you made in your full written statement which says that, ''our experience with Saddam Hussein and Iraq underscores how tempting weapons of mass destruction remain to the very worst regimes.''
    And in that context, recently I and another Member of the House commissioned a GAO report which has been issued, with reference to the International Atomic Energy Agency support for programs in rogue states, such as Iran and Cuba, through our participation in the technical cooperation program that exists at IAEA. I'm not talking about our participation in general with the IAEA, which I believe is good, but I'm talking about all of the voluntary U.S. taxpayer funds that we give to the voluntary program.
    And the IAEA has been giving funds to projects in Cuba, including assistance to moth-balling the Hawahra Habana nuclear plant and to a certain degree, even a greater concern, to complete the Bushehr nuclear power facility in Iran.
    Now, the United States has objections to the completion of both of these plants, and in the case of Iran, we suspect that the completion of the Bushehr plant might advance Iran's nuclear weapons program. So, my first question is, should the United States continue to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded voluntary contributions, not the main program, voluntary contributions to this program if it supports programs that do not coincide with U.S. nuclear non-proliferation and safety goals? And my second question is with reference—continuing with Iran and this Bushehr nuclear facility is of great concern, I think, to many of us, and hence, what the IAEA is doing in that capacity. We don't need it to go on-line, and we're assisting it to go on-line, in essence, through the technical operations of the IAEA and the voluntary contributions we're making. Staying with Iran, the Iranian President Khatami has recently spoken of his desire for greater open dialog with the American people; other clerical leaders in Iran, like Khomeini continue their unremitting hostility to the United States. The question there is, is there any sign that Iran has decreased its support of terrorism? Is its effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them been mitigated or have they ceased? Does Khatami have the power to redirect Iranian foreign policy, even if he chooses to? I'd like you to give us a sense, we're focused on Iraq, and we should, obviously, be, but I think that right next door, we have one tremendous concern on our hands, and I'm also concerned that since this ultimately is a hearing about the U.S. foreign policy budget, that we are spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on a program that contravenes our national interests and national security interests in the case of the Bushehr nuclear facility in Iran.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman Menendez, let me just say that I believe the IAEA plays a crucial role in terms of our overall goal of preventing nuclear proliferation, so it is an organization that we think is very valuable to our purposes. I will look at the details of what you're saying and look at your GAO report, but I do think that we need to keep in mind that the IAEA is absolutely key to what we're trying to do throughout the world in terms of monitoring.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. I agree, Madam Secretary, but may I just interrupt one moment and say, do we want to see this Bushehr nuclear facility go on-line in Iran?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. No. And let me, on the Iran question, let me say this, clearly, as I said to Mr. Hamilton, what is going on there is of great interest, and there have been, for instance, Iran is now the chair of the organization of Islamic countries, and in the course of that meeting there were some interesting resolutions that came out that indicated that potentially there was some new thinking, but we have not yet seen any specific things come out.
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has—did I cut you off——
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. No, that's fine.
    Mr. HYDE. Fine. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith for 5 minutes.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Albright, I was disappointed that in your remarks before Senator Helms' committee earlier this week, you blamed Congress for holding up the Administration's foreign aid package and today you called it a game of legislative blackmail. I can assure you it is neither a game, nor is it blackmail. Those are very superficial words. It belittles us who hold that unborn children are sacred and precious. I don't engage in those kinds of rhetorical outbursts, and I certainly would hope that the distinguished Secretary of State would not engage in it either.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I think it should be pointed out—and I hope the press pays close attention to this—that both Houses of Congress would have agreed to a package that included the Administration's U.N. arrearage proposal, U.N. reform, the State Department reorganization, and the $3.5 billion in new borrowing authority for the International Monetary Fund, but at the last minute the word came back that the President would veto the bill because it also contained compromise language on the financing of foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions.
    I and other pro-life House Members had reluctantly agreed to this compromise. It was excruciating. We gave half a loaf. We gave the President the power to waive the provision with respect to organizations that perform abortions so long as the organizations do not promote abortions. Apparently some of the President's advisers were determined to kill anything other than a blank check for the international abortion industry, even if it also meant killing the U.N. arrearage and IMF issues. And, to the surprise of almost everybody, those advisors prevailed.
    It is unrealistic to expect Congress to agree to a global settlement on all the big foreign policy issues that matter to the Administration, and give the Administration the benefit of serious doubts on many of these issues, unless the Administration shows some flexibility with respect to the issues that matter to Congress.
    I would submit that the lavish funding of the overseas abortion industry can't be divorced from the enlightening national debate underway in this country on partial-birth abortion. It has accelerated the process of exposing the simple truth that abortion is violence against children and that the abortion industry routinely exploits, injures, and lies to women. Leading abortion-rights leader Ron Fitzsimmons said, and I quote, ''I lied through my teeth.'' Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute, very active on the world stage, circulated fact sheets that were filled with misinformation and lies.
    For the first time in 25 years, I believe that Americans are looking beyond the cheap sophistry and self-serving rhetoric of the abortion industry and they are connecting the dots. If it is shocking and inhumane to jam scissors and a vacuum hose into the head of a partially delivered baby, why is it any less violent, shocking and inhumane, to dismember the bodies of children with surgical knives, or to dislodge and destroy babies with hideous suction machines 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, or to pump dangerous chemical compounds, including high-concentration salt into the unborn baby's environment to poison that baby? More than 36 million babies have lost their lives in the United States—a holocaust of staggering proportions. That's more than 36 million American kids who will never take their first steps, or thrill their parents with their first day of school, or play soccer, basketball or baseball.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The approximately $400 million Congress authorizes and appropriates for population control—every penny of it—is discretionary funds. We're not talking about an entitlement. We're talking about discretionary funds. Grant money should not assist those who wage war on the unborn in other parts of the world.
    As I mentioned to you, Madam Secretary, today, the head of the IPPF affiliate in the Philippines quit because he said, we're not all about family planning, what we're doing here is a thinly disguised effort to bring down the Philippine law on abortion which protects the unborn. So I would hope that when we take up these issues soon, and perhaps during the course of the next few months, the President's foreign policy advisors and not his abortion advisors will decide which is more important to the Administration, the U.N. reorganization, IMF, or funding of the international abortion industry.
    And let me just say, finally, with all due respect, I hope, Madam Secretary, that you will take the utterly unfair and misleading statement about, ''attending conferences where abortion is discussed,'' out of your talking points. Nobody on our side has ever argued that activities change the laws of a country. The activity addressed by the bill includes simply attending a conference at which somebody else discusses abortion. We have pointed out that some of the biggest U.S. population grantees in countries around the world——
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. If I——
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Just one more sentence, if I could.
    Mr. HYDE. OK, one more sentence.
    Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have pointed out that the biggest U.S. population grantees around the world have repeatedly sponsored conferences whose principal themes were the alleged defects in those countries' anti-abortion laws. So we ought to be completely up-front and transparent about what we're talking about.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Secretary, thank you so very much for the extraordinary work that you have done and are doing on behalf of all of us in this country and the world.
    I'd like to change the subject just very briefly. I'm hopeful that there is a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis that's impending, but if not, then I am also hopeful that the Administration sees fit to actively consult with Congress. And I have every reason to believe that will occur. I consider it extremely important that it occur and I'd offer that to you to pass on to the President and others.
    Madam Secretary, one of the greatest privileges and honors that has been bestowed upon me as an individual is an opportunity to serve on this Committee under the now-leadership of Chairman Gilman, and the previous leadership and still my leadership of Congressman Hamilton and countless others that I've come to know. And the privilege and opportunity to travel extensively with colleagues and to see in our outposts the work of the fine people who don't get as much mention, honorably or otherwise, for the extraordinary work that they do on behalf of this country and particularly the business interests of this country.
    In my experience, I have seen some extremely shabby conditions and lack of personnel in many of our embassies. And I guess my question is, and it will be the only one that I will have, Mr. Chairman, although there are countless ones I'd like to offer, but time constraints don't allow for it. My understanding is that you have planned for 74 new positions in the Department's Fiscal Year 1999 budget and I'm curious, how far will that go in meeting current needs and are you planning to add more positions in succeeding years, and what are the personnel shifts? I've seen some of them up close and I could give you my anecdotal information. What is the impact of some of the personnel shifts and, quite frankly, who are the winners and the losers? And one final area that this country had better wake up to, and that is that we need more language speakers, period. And I don't know how to get that across to our colleagues that they need to have people being trained to speak languages in countries where we are there with a diplomatic presence and a great need for better communication and understanding. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Congressman. And also let me say, I appreciate very much your appreciation for the hardworking people that represent us overseas. I think that there are a lot of stories that are not true in terms of their not working hard. I travel around a great deal, they're all overworked, we call them at odd hours of the day and night, and they have many, many problems to deal with, so I appreciate what you're saying.
    I am very glad that we were able to get increased funding last year and we're asking for a little bit more this year. We obviously could use more people, but I think that we are working within the means that we have. We would like to, I think, be able to use our people as effectively as possible.
    I agree with you about the language training. That is a very big deal. We also are looking at different skills in our foreign service people now because there are so many kinds of problems, environmental issues, weapons of mass destruction, health issues, business; those are all very different kinds of skills from what were necessary 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, so we are constantly working on improving our foreign service personnel, but I appreciate very much your sentiments.
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, we have five hostages that have been held in Colombia since 1991, and it appears as though the State Department and the embassy in Bogota have not been paying attention to that issue and really pushing on it. There's David Mankins, Rich Tenenoff, Mark Rich, Donald Rydell and Gerald Dwayne Schaefer, and I would just urge—I have some other remarks before you respond—but I would just urge you and the State Department diligently because their families and their loved ones really want them back home.
    Now with us today, we have three Colombian national police officers, Colonel Marino, Major Sejara, and Captain Butrago. Would you three gentlemen stand please, I'd like the Secretary to see you. And the reason I'd like for you to see their faces, Madam Secretary—thank you, gentlemen—is since 1991, 4,000 Colombian national policemen fighting the war against drugs have been killed.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, I'm concerned about Saddam Hussein, but we're losing the so-called war against drugs. As a matter of fact, I don't think we have a war against drugs. There's a war by the drug cartel against America and the rest of the world, but we aren't really fighting or winning a war against drugs. I think it's almost nonexistent.
    Now, we have promised the Colombian national police helicopters. In your budget last year, the anti-narcotics budget, you requested $216 million, we increased that $14 million, bipartisanly, so that the total was $230 million. There was $25 million destined for Bosnia, earmarked for police training, which we did not earmark because we wanted that money to go for drug interdiction and fighting the drug war in Colombia. That's over $39 million that was allocated for the helicopters and mini-guns down there in Colombia. They have not been sent. Or the ones that have been sent are being held there. And they have been promised and promised and promised. I have picture after picture after picture of these people being mutilated down there in their helicopters, and shot down, because the mini-guns aren't there and because the helicopters aren't being upgraded so they can fly at high altitudes to get to not only the cocaine crops, the coca crops, but also the heroine crops, the poppy crops, which are at very high altitudes and this is very distressing.
    You know, over 70 percent of the crimes committed in America are drug-related. The drug cartels are coming after us and they're ruining our kids' lives, they're ruining our society, they're filling our prisons, and they're costing us untold billions of dollars, trillions in all probability. And what are we doing? We're saying we don't have enough money to get the helicopters down there to help the people that are dying on the vine in fighting the drug war. Now, the chairman of this Committee, and Sam Gejdenson, and others on the other side of the aisle, have signed letters with us urging the Administration to get these helicopters and mini-guns down there to fight the war against drugs, and we're not doing it. And today you said, well, we don't think that's the most effective way.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Well, talk to these people who are down there dying without pieces of equipment. They need it. They need it and we need to give it to them. We need to have an all-out war against drugs. We need to not only fight it at our borders and in the United States of America, arresting the big drug dealers and hanging them from the yardarm if we have to, but in addition, we need to go into an eradication program where they're producing this stuff. Peru is no longer the major cocaine producer, or coca producer, in the world. It's now in Colombia, and we need to give them whatever they need to fight it, and these people are fighting it. Not the military down there, the Colombian national police and General Serrano.
    So I hope you will reconsider, carry this message. I hope the media picks it up. This is the main war that I'm concerned about. I want to get Saddam Hussein, but this is killing our kids in America today. Every American family in one way or another is being affected. And we're not fighting a war against drugs because there is no war against drugs. We need to go after them in the fields where they're growing them, at our borders, and in this country. And if we do that, we'll win. Thank you.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Can I just say, briefly, Congressman Burton, that Colombia receives more counter-drug money than any other country, and in the last 2 years, we've dramatically increased our funding to Colombia, and I do think that you are right, as we need to have a full war on drugs and General McCaffrey is leading it.
    Mr. BURTON. Madam Secretary, I know my time has expired, but let me just tell you, we have been told and told and told that, by the embassy, and by the State Department and by General McCaffrey and others, those helicopters are down there, they're going to be down there, they're going to be utilized, they're going to have the mini-guns. Article after article, letter after letter, and then we hear from you today, we don't think that's a top priority because General McCaffrey has re-evaluated his position. They need those helicopters. They need those mini-guns. They're getting killed down there fighting for us and our kids, and you say we don't need them. They need them, I'm telling you, they need them.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. The learned gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I've been here for a little while, we've had secretaries that are good spokespeople for the United States, we've had some who have been pretty good at policy, I can say in my time here, we've never had anybody who, I believe, has been as articulate for America's concerns worldwide and has worked for an effective policy as you have. And, frankly, it makes me proud when I see you on television representing our country, and I think there are many people here and around the country that feel that.
    I want to particularly commend you and the President for standing tough in the peace process in the Middle East. It's a tough moment that we're going through, but I think that your policy and the President's, are the right ones. We need to continue on that course.
    And I want to commend you for standing tough on family planning as well. There is nothing that is more damaging to the lives of people around the world than the exploding populations in some of these very poor countries. Unless we're serious about family planning, we will find ourselves in more turmoil around the globe and more pain and more deaths, so I'm particularly pleased to see your efforts in that area.
    Two things that we discussed earlier, that I would just like to say on the public record as well. One is that in Iraq, I hope that we make sure that the American people, and some of our colleagues understand, that like other confrontations, when we confronted communism, when we confronted the Nazis, these are weekend enterprises, that there are aspects to this policy that we have to engage in over the long haul.
    And that there's at least a twofold, from my perspective, reason for that. One is the particular focus of the moment, Iraq. We want to make sure they know we're in it for the long haul, no matter what their intentions are, and second, for anybody else who thinks they might join Iraq in this kind of mischief, that the United States will force the world, whether it wants to or not, to do this.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would like to say on drugs that I'm, frankly, sorry to hear Mr. Burton's statement. There may be differences in policies, but we've had 12 years of Republican Administrations here, we still have a drug problem. We now have a Democratic Administration, we still have a drug problem. It's not because there isn't an effort or desire to fight it. I think you guys are doing everything you can. We need to do more at home to reduce demand, as the other countries often point out.
    The last place we've had some differences on—and I'm going to give you another chance to talk about it, I know you suggested I talk to one of your folks—I think America has to take the lead on conventional arms control. We lead on so many areas, nuclear, chemical, and biological. We are the single largest seller of arms around the world. I think it creates indebtedness in poor countries that's wrong. It creates regional arms races that are wrong. I understand why we can't stop unilaterally, because then they just buy a Mig or buy a Mirage instead of an American plane, but I think I want to hear from you, your very articulate voice leading the fight for international arms control on conventional weapons. And I just want to commend you, again.
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. Let's see now, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Campbell is next. You're put on the list, Mr. Gallegly, when people arrive.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm hopeful of getting to three subjects. I want to talk with you about Africa, I want to talk with you about Cuba, and I want to talk for a brief moment about Bosnia. If I may, then, I'll just make my questions short. On Bosnia, first of all, I'm concerned about the threat or the circumstances that our soldiers may be in. I've been told that things are better than the time when we put our soldiers in, and I'd like you to share with us your assessment of the threats, the situations that our soldiers are in right now in Bosnia, and, if you could, how that contrasts with what it was at the time we put them in.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Mr. Campbell, I went to Bosnia at Christmas, I've been there any number of times, and I think that there is no question that the situation is improving to a great extent and obviously that also means the threat to our military. Our military had done a remarkable job there and it's thanks to them that we can honestly say that we are in the third quarter of a successful game here. I think that their role there is key to the next phase which is to provide a secure environment for the civil implementation of Dayton to go forward. The fact of the matter is that almost all of the heavy weapons have basically been contained, the forces have been separated, and the most difficult aspect of the military operation has been done. And so what they're going to be doing there now, is to provide the environment that will allow the civil implementation to go forward.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Permit me to just follow up. The question I was most focusing on was what kind of threat they're under, and is it better than when we first put them in?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Oh, yes, very much so. I think that anywhere they are there is some threat. The President spoke about it the other day, that there are just accidents that happen that are non-related to the place where they are, but I would say that the threat is much, much lower if not completely nonexistent.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. And are there attacks now, and were there at the time we put them in, on American troops?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. They are not directed at American troops.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. And were there at the time we put them in? Have things gotten better in that regard?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I can't speak specifically to whether there were specific attacks directed at them, but, clearly, the situation is much improved.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. OK, thanks. On Africa, I want you to know that I and many of my colleagues, but particularly my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, have made an effort to travel, and we are so thrilled that you cared to go to Africa and, speaking just for myself, I'm so supportive the President has decided to go, particularly I would urge your support for the Africa Rapid Deployment Force, African nations supplying military, not European, not American, but our logistics support and our transport support for the use of force when necessary to stop genocides.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And, last, on Cuba, since my light is amber, look, we trade with China, we trade with Vietnam, we traded with the Soviet Union, we trade with Russia. For heaven's sakes, why do we maintain the embargo on Cuba?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. On the Africa issue, let me just say that we are trying, and we will succeed, in paying more attention to Africa because I think it is a continent of tremendous hope for us, and we need to treat it in a way that includes it in the global economy, and doesn't make it victims of it. So, we're very pleased with that.
    On the African Crisis Response Force, when I was there, I discussed it with all the countries where I went. I think we have changed or elaborated on our concept there so that it really is an African force, and I think that's what it needs to be.
    The Cuba issue is one where I think that it is an anomaly in our hemisphere. They shot down American pilots, unarmed, and I think that it is a different situation than in those other countries.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Than China, than Russia, than Vietnam? They shot down lots of Americans in Vietnam.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I think that it is a situation which is untenable in our hemisphere, and we would like to have Castro change his policies, and we believe that this is the best way to go about it.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Mr. HYDE. Thank you. On motion of Mr. Burton and Mr. Gilman, and without objection, the record will include a letter from the State Department dated August 10, 1996, promising Chairman Gilman that the Huey helicopters for the Colombian national police would be upgraded. As of today, February 12, 1998, not one has been upgraded, and so without objection, this will be made part of the record.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The letter appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. HYDE. Ms. Danner is recognized.
    Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, I think it's important to the American people that they understand up front what we may be facing in Iraq. I would bring to your attention that the American people were led to believe in Bosnia that we would be there for a short period of time without spending all that much money. We've been there much longer and spent much more money than we indicated to the American people. I fear that may be happening with Iraq. When you talk about substantial strikes, I think perhaps you're referring to air strikes. I think it's important that we talk about the fact that air strikes are probably not going to accomplish the mission, and that we're in all likelihood going to be talking about ground troops, were talking about a possibility of not only losing civilians in Iraq, women and children, but we're also talking abut the possibility of an attack on Israel, which I think the American people would find very difficult to accept. Let's discuss, if you will, the potential use of ground troops in Iraq.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congresswoman, we have no plans to use ground troops in Iraq. I described what our goals are and, frankly, there have been those who have said that our goal is not large enough. But we are trying to deal with a specific national security threat which we see as the ability of Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction and constitute them or threaten his neighbors, and we believe that a substantial air strike will help us achieve that goal.
    We are trying to explain that this is a very complicated issue in that it is not about Saddam Hussein having crossed a border, but Saddam Hussein defying the will of the international community and Security Council resolutions about inspections. We clearly need to spend more time explaining this to the American people and what our goals really are, and we are doing it.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. DANNER. With regard to the inspectors, initially Saddam Hussein said he wanted no American inspectors. Is there some reason we couldn't have fleshed that out with inspectors from other countries who are obviously competent, because as we go into what we perceive to be possibly this air strike, we're certainly not going into this engagement with a proportional number of our allies with us.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congresswoman, it's not an issue so much of American inspectors, these are people that are selected for their expertise by the chairman of the UNSCOM commission who wants to have the people who understand what are very technical issues in terms of how the information about these weapons should be evaluated and this requires a lot of experts on it.
    The other half of your question, is that we have support from a number of countries. The United Kingdom is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us, other countries have offered us logistical equipment, bases, et cetera, and I do feel that we have international support for what we are trying to do.
    What is difficult and I think some of your colleagues have said it, is our goal at this stage is to contain Saddam Hussein, and this is what we are trying to do through this action.
    Ms. DANNER. I certainly have many more questions, but I recognize that other Members have questions too, and in order to adhere to a courtesy of my fellow Congressmen, I will not pose them at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. HYDE. The Chair thanks and admires the gentlelady. Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, the situation in Iraq is one that I think is on the minds of not only most Americans, but most countries around the world. In the event that our President does opt for a military strike on Iraq, it is my own personal assessment, and I'm sure the assessment of many other folks, that Saddam Hussein's greatest military defense is not the Republican Guard, or not his military hardware, but his women and children.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This man uses unconscionable measures; I think probably almost unprecedented in history. He has said, and it is clear in all our minds, that any areas that we would focus on for an air strike, he will probably protect not with radar or anti-artillery, but with women and children. How is our President prepared to address this issue to the American people and to the world?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. First of all, let me say, that this is one reason we are not discussing our targeting. But I think that we have to remember, as you have said, that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and very brave in the fact that he uses women and children to protect himself and sites. He has displayed uncivilized behavior toward his people before, he has used chemical weapons on them and, therefore, there is no length to which he would not go to preserve himself in power. We obviously, if we have to take this action, would hope to have the smallest number of civilian casualties and in looking at the targets, we are very concerned about collateral damage.
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Secretary, I know that we certainly are not here, nor do any of us want to participate in discussing targets, specific targets, but the fact remains, Saddam Hussein has areas that he knows would be more vulnerable than others. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand his military mind, and the fact that he has enough women and children probably to protect the sites he feels to be most vulnerable. And we still get back to that threshold question, how is our President prepared to address the American public and the world if, heaven forbid, we be presented with this type of situation?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I have to tell you, having discussed this with the President, that he is very concerned about what this brings to civilians, and to women and children, that is something that is very much on all our minds. And I think it's a part of what we are thinking about, but at the same time I do believe that we have a responsibility to protect U.S. national interests, and that is what this is about. We would obviously, and I've said this and so has he, prefer to solve this diplomatically. And that means that there should be access for these inspectors to be able to see what he has in terms of weapons of mass destruction and the truth is, UNSCOM has done a terrific job, so that is our preference.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Secretary, are you still optimistic that we will be able to affect our objective here diplomatically?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I'm always an optimist, but I have to tell you, on this line, I'm skeptical.
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. LUTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Secretary. Thanks for your presentation today and for the good job you're doing for our country. In relative terms, I've been here only a short while, but in the time I've been here, I have become impressed with this whole micro-credit movement as a foreign policy tool. And I don't know that I've ever heard you speak directly on this subject, and I'm sure you have many times, but I would be interested, and hopefully other Committee Members would be as well, your views on the potential for the micro-credit movement.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. First of all, I think what is very interesting is that we are all dealing much more with the influence of business in terms of our relationships with other countries and as Congressman Hastings, actually, was saying, that the amount of work that our embassies do vis-a-vis business abroad is something entirely new and very exciting. On the micro-credit, we have supported some of these micro-enterprises in trying to get them going because it's a way for there not only to be support but it also helps to get the average person much more into the business of developing their own country, and therefore, it serves a variety of purposes. It helps in the development of that country, it helps in their inclusion, generally, within the system, and it's a good way of doing business.
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you for being interested in it. We should talk about it more.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. [presiding] Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for answering questions today and also in the meeting prior to this. I know that you've expressed great frustration in the ability to generate financial support for the U.N. arrearages and the general non-support of the United Nations in this country.
    Something recently brought to mind, one of the reasons I think you have those difficulties, as you know, recently the State of Texas where I am from executed a woman for two gruesome murders she committed 15 years ago. Mary Robinson, who heads the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, harshly criticized the execution, which is her right, claimed that this jeopardized our country's relationships with other countries around the world. And it brought to mind that earlier this fall, at the invitation of the Clinton Administration, a member of that commission which is charged with applying and investigating and hopefully stopping the most egregious tortures and rapes and imprisonments and massacres around this world, was invited to America to three states to investigate the death penalty.
    For many victims in this country, it's inconceivable that the Administration would allow and, in fact, encourage the classifying of capital punishment along with the most brutal murders in this world. And we are all colored by our experiences; when I was 12, my father was murdered, and while my family went through the trial, the conviction, and the sentence, which was life in prison without parole, like a lot of families, we were before the parole board regularly trying to keep him behind bars.
    One, it's clear that in this discussion, we have lost sight of the victims in this issue, that our Administration ought to be insisting that this commission focus on true human rights, that if they are to investigate the death sentence in America, that we ought to insist that they visit the grave sites of the victims in which in our country, there are more than 600 victims, whose, if their remains were laid out be displayed would fill an airplane hangar for the international commission to see. And it seems to me that if we continue to allow the United Nations to divert its resources from true human rights, to such issues as this, it undermines the credibility of the institution. It calls in question whether they know their essential mission of peacekeeping, which it is a humanitarian need and human rights, which are tremendously essential, and it undermines the ability to explain to the American people why we should be devoting our resources to such ludicrous investigation such as this.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I share this, I will submit questions about the cost of the investigation, America's role in it, and the cost to us to support this type of investigation. But my point to you, perhaps, is that all of these actions by the United Nations contributes to your difficulties in trying to get it to focus on its missions and for America to support it.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, let me say that when I was up there as ambassador, there were many countries that did not have the death penalty and thought that we shouldn't, and that is part of the discussion. But let me say that I think that if you look at the balance of what the United Nations does, it is good for America. It is a way for us to share the burden in peacekeeping operations, to deal with vaccinations, to deal with issues about whether our airlines fly in the right places, and a whole host of issues that are directly related to the lives of Americans. Most Americans don't even know that they send a letter abroad because there's a U.N. organization that deals with that, so I think the United Nations is good for the United States and we get a lot out of it. I know what you're saying, and we will look into it.
    Mr. BRADY. And I appreciate, too, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for those of us who do support capital punishment, it is very few who take joy in it. It is nothing to celebrate, it is almost a humane punishment, almost a peaceful, quiet punishment compared to the horrible, violent moments of the victims who have been the result of these murderers, and it's important that the rest of the world understand that true human rights lay outside this issue. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Chair recognizes Mr. Andrews.
    Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for your time this morning and thank you for your service to our country. I also thank you for being such a great role model for young people around the country.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you.
    Mr. ANDREWS. Showing that you can lead a life of principled public service and not only do good for your country, but have a satisfying, rewarding career. We appreciate that very, very much.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I have two questions this morning. First, in your prepared statement, you indicated that the Administration supports the expansion of the European Union into central and eastern Europe, and Turkey's desire to be a part of that process. I believe, and many people believe, that accession to the EU for Turkey should be conditioned upon Turkey's active and constructive participation in s settlement of the Cyprus question. Do you agree that should be a condition to Turkey's accession and, second, what role is Turkey presently playing in the constructive conclusion of the Cyprus problem?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, thank you for your kind words. And let me say that this is a very complex issue because it is very important, I believe, for all of us to have Turkey look westward rather than east or south. We need to have it be a part of the new European community. It's because of all the things going on there, and my dealings with the Prime Minister Alnus and Prime Minister Chem who are trying very hard to turn Turkey westward. We have talked to them a lot about what needs to be done in terms of becoming members of the EU, and we have obviously spent a great deal of time with them in trying to deal with the Cyprus issue which is the longest running and a source of great problems to all of us. We are pressing on them to be of greater assistance in Cyprus. Ambassador Holbrooke is trying to carry on those negotiations, the elections in Cyprus are in between two rounds at the moment, and we will pay even more attention to it as soon as everybody is settled.
    Mr. ANDREWS. The additional question that I have is that many of us were, frankly, dismayed by media reports that the Saudi Arabian Government has been something less than cooperative in preparation for any necessary military strike against Iraq. To the extent that it is appropriate for you to comment on those discussions publicly, I wonder if you could tell us what the Administration's assessment is of the Saudi position and if it has been accurately reported that the Saudis have been aggressively reluctant to cooperate in the military effort, what should we do in response?
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I am sure you won't be surprised to hear me say this, but don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.
    Mr. ANDREWS. You just fortified your integrity with me.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I had very good discussions in Saudi Arabia with the crown prince. It is my belief that they will be supportive as we need them, if we do in fact use force. They were very helpful in a statement that they made which indicated that they agreed that Saddam had created the crisis, that all Security Council resolutions needed to be implemented, that they hoped this would be solved diplomatically, as do we, and that Saddam would be responsible for whatever grave consequences came, and they are being helpful and cooperative, and I think Secretary Cohen can report on that, too.
    Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate that. Just in conclusion, I hope you would convey, in an appropriate diplomatic way, that many of our, at least my constituents, have a very hard time reconciling the fact that half a million young Americans went to the Middle East the early part of this decade, and one of the benefits of that effort and that sacrifice was the protection of Saudi sovereignty. There's an argument there wouldn't be a Saudi Arabian Government today, as it exists, had that action not taken place. And our constituents are rather irritated by the suggestion that there's anything less than full cooperation from the Saudi Government at this point. Thank you for your time this morning.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. Thank you. First of all, Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for dedicating your time to start the race, the Marine Corps marathon. I was in that race, it was one of the highlights of my life, even though I got rained on the whole time, and got a really terrible cold afterwards, I don't blame you for that.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But thank you for being here.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I had a great time. I didn't run.
    Mr. SALMON. I appreciate you doing that.
    Over the years, the United States has made several mistakes in dealing with Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. We've consistently underestimated his power while ignoring his acts and words of aggression. These miscalculations on the part of U.S. policymakers including us, have contributed to the quagmire we're in now in Iraq.
    The United States has got to learn from its mistakes and not repeat them. I fear that your Administration, in its noble quest for securing a lasting peace in the Middle East, may be facilitating the emergence of yet another despotic regime. The regime I'm talking about is the Palestinian Authority controlled by Yasser Arafat.
    As America inches closer to a conflict, maybe even a war, with Iraq, high officials in Arafat's Government have made supportive statements of Iraq. Rallies with thousands of Palestinians have been organized calling on Hussein to hit Tel Aviv with chemicals and missiles, and Arafat, like Hussein, has failed to honor the agreements he has signed. Of most concern to me, Arafat has ignored 36 requests from Israel to extradite individuals connected to terrorist attacks. Some of the Israeli extradition requests include terrorists who killed Americans. The area controlled by Arafat is becoming a safe haven for terrorists who have murdered Americans. U.S. financial support, in my belief, should be halted until Arafat delivers the individuals responsible for the murders of Americans to the United States or Israel to stand trial.
    I drafted a letter with Representative Jim Saxton, signed by over 30 of our colleagues from both the House and the Senate, transmitted to you on January 21, which requested that the Administration make all diplomatic and legal efforts to guarantee that the Palestinian terrorists guilty of killing and maiming Americans be brought to justice. We expressed our concern that the U.S. Government has failed to obtain the transfer of nine terrorists who have murdered American citizens and who are believed to be living in territories controlled by Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yasser Arafat. We're still waiting on a response.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Of the nine terrorists implicated in the attacks that have killed Americans, not a single one has been transferred for trial to either the United States, as permitted by the 1986 antiterrorism law, or to Israel, as required by the Oslo Accord and Hebron Protocol. At least seven of the terrorists are completely free. One is permitted freedom of movement in Jericho, and the other who I will discuss in detail below is currently being tried after being released in 1996 in a Palestinian Authority kangaroo court.
    We know that the Palestinian judicial system is hopelessly corrupt. Arafat has already released one of the nine, a man who murdered American citizen, Alisa Flatow, and seven Israelis in the 1995 attack. I believe you have referred to the Palestinian Authority courts as a revolving door of justice. Fortunately, U.S. law provides us with the authority to seek the transfer of terrorists who have murdered American citizens. Imjad Hinawi, the murderer who is currently being tried in a Palestinian court for gunning down 17-year-old David Boim in 1996 should be immediately transferred to the United States for trial.
    U.S. officials have no excuse if Hinawi is not transferred to the United States. Hinawi's whereabouts are known. The Administration should call Arafat and tell him that there will be no further U.S. aid, no red-carpet business, or other dignitary niceties, until Hinawi reaches American soil for trial. Please indulge me while I read excerpts from a touching letter from David's mother, Joyce Boim. She sent it to me yesterday, asking that I question you about the U.S. Government, what they've done to apprehend her son's killer. ''The pain that my family has experienced by the loss of David in May 1996, has been compounded by the knowledge that the Palestinian Authority has refused to punish his killers. One of the killers was briefly detained by the PA police and then released. He subsequently took part in the September 1996 bombing in Jerusalem which killed four more people, including a 14-year-old American girl, Yael Botwin. The other terrorist identified by Israel as taking part in the murder of my son is Imjad Hinawi who is presently on trial in a Palestinian Authority court. Regardless of what sentence the PA court may hand down, I have no confidence that Hinawi will remain in prison for any substantial amount of time because the PA has routinely released terrorists long before their sentences were completed. The Palestinian authority's long record of releasing terrorists even though sentenced to long jail terms, provides ample basis for my expectation that my son's killer, Imjad Hinawi, will not remain in prison for long. On the other hand, I have full confidence in the ability of the American justice system to deal with Hinawi according to the time-honored principles of American justice.''
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, I've got my question. I'm sorry for making a long approach, but the parents of these murder victims have contacted me on a regular basis and the blood of these victims cries from the dust for justice. Killers of Americans must be brought to justice. Would you do as Mrs. Boim asks, and insist to Arafat that he transfer Hinawi to the United States to stand trial? And what can you personally do to ensure that the eight other terrorists who have murdered Americans, and are believed to be living under territory controlled by Arafat, be tried either in the United States or Israel? And did the President bring up these victims and the possibility of extradition when he met with Arafat most recently? Thank you.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, let me just say that every time I meet with Chairman Arafat, or when the President does, we discuss these issues. It is absolutely essential that there not be any revolving door, that the people be arrested, and it is a subject of great concern to both the President and to me, I can assure you. We are very concerned to make sure that Arafat does everything he can to really have a 100 percent effort on all these issues. They are essential in order for the process to move forward. We make that very clear on every occasion. And we should talk more specifically about the cases you raised.
    But on the issue on how they are dealing with respect to Saddam Hussein, I think it's really quite interestingly different from 1990 and 1991. Chairman Arafat actually has made very clear that he thinks the Security Council resolutions ought to be abided by and the Palestinian Authority has tried to stop these demonstrations. I'm making no excuses for them, but I'm just saying that it is a different situation than prior to the Gulf war.
    Mr. SALMON. One last point. I know we're in a hurry, but an article today, and I don't know if you've——
    Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I think it's out of order. We're going to have a vote, we're going to have to leave, he's taken 10 minutes already.
    Mr. SALMON. There's an article in the paper today I might share with you.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman and also with the many comments made in praise of your efforts, Madam Secretary, and what you've brought to the State Department. I've been a strong supporter, at least in my first year of Congress, of the foreign policy of the Administration, on all the budgetary issues, all the way down to Mexican certification which was a lonely situation.
    But it is getting harder and harder to support the Administration's foreign policy. One issue that is particularly tough is funding of the United Nations when the Administration has not forced the United Nations to treat Israel fairly and to include Israel in a regional group.
    Another area that is particularly tough for me and we discussed this at our earlier meeting. Around the world, talking to people about democracy and the rule of law. The U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act in 1995 but your budget asks for funds to build a new embassy in Berlin, and a new embassy in Beijing. I don't think it's because you just forgot about the law. I think that you are on a course to intentionally violate the law, and in a game of chicken with Congress to see whether we'll allow the sanctions in that law to actually become operative. And I do think it's important that if American foreign policy is at risk next year, because those provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act become effective, it's not our fault. We passed the law in 1995. It is the State Department that has decided that democracy counts and the rule of law counts in every country except this one. And I know you'll be here asking us not to enforce the law, but I hope instead that you'll use these last remaining months to move the embassy to Jerusalem, not necessarily because you think it's wise, but because I hope you believe in democracy and the rule of law enough to follow laws even when you think they're unwise.
    One area that I didn't get a chance to talk to you about this morning, is the fact that Israel has made very substantial concessions. These territorial concessions and other concessions are tangible, they're measurable, and they're irreversible. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority has really not made any concessions. They have promised land for peace, and yet the covenant remains unchanged, the teaching materials in Palestinian schools educate a new generation for war. And I would ask whether it would not be more appropriate, instead of us being evenhanded between the terrorists and their protectors on the one hand, and the victims of terror on the other, if we were to make it very clear that we believe that Israel should not be called upon to make even the most minor concession until the Palestinian Authority actually effectuates the change of the covenant which still calls for the destruction of Israel, and changes its teaching materials so as to make it clear that the next generation is being educated for peace, and calls upon other Arab countries to make peace with Israel. Isn't it time that land for peace involved some concentration of the United States on the peace part of that equation?
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, you've raised many questions, but let me say on the first part about the United Nations, it's a little hard to force anybody at the United Nations to do anything, if we don't pay our bills.
    Second, on the issue of the peace process, let me say that the difficulty there is that the bonds of confidence that were developed as a result of the Oslo process have really worn down, and the peace process is in bad shape. I have to tell you, 1997 was not a good year. And what we're trying to do is get respect so that the sides respect each other enough to really deal and make some hard decisions. I have made very clear that the Palestinians must do everything, make a 100-percent effort, on the issue of terrorism, and, as you know, Chairman Arafat actually issued a letter about the covenant and they submitted it to their executive committee. So, I think that I am making no excuses for anyone, it has not been a good year and it's important to restore the bonds.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that when we did pay our dues to the United Nations, they did not treat Israel fairly, now that we don't pay our dues, they don't treat Israel fairly, and perhaps we're in a stronger position while the money is in our hands than when the money is in their hands.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. This is not an issue that can be done that way.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. [presiding] Madam Secretary, how much time do you have?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I have to host the Bulgarian President for lunch, so I don't know. A couple more.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we better take a couple more questions from Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, welcome. It's always a pleasure and an honor to be in your company, and you represent our country so well. Every time we hear you speak, we feel very proud of you.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But I believe that this Administration is not doing enough to implement our present laws in regards to Cuba. You are very well versed on this subject, having come to south Florida a number of times to discuss this issue. We're greatly disappointed that the President once again has chosen to suspend Title III of our Libertad Act, the Helms-Burton law, and I have several questions related to that.
    First of all, does the Administration have any intention of ever enforcing Title III and Title IV of the Libertad Act? Also, in regards to the European Union's complaint in front of the World Trade Organization regarding Helms-Burton, I hope that the United States does not agree to any further extensions on this negation. This Committee, with our very able chairman, Ben Gilman, intends to carefully examine whether Title IV of the Libertad Act has been vigorously applied as we hoped it would, against foreigners who are found to be trafficking in stolen American property in Cuba, and I'd like to have your comments on that. And also, we've heard some reports that the Administration may be thinking about what they call calibrated responses to the Pope's visit in Cuba, a response which might circumvent existing restrictions, for example, on general licenses there given to the folks to go to Cuba, the opening of flights once again to Cuba. Is the Administration contemplating any gradual change in Cuba policy without consultation with the U.S. Congress? And I wanted to get your thoughts about the implementation of the Libertad Act, and the EU complaint.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. As you know, Congresswoman, I have been very concerned with this subject, and have made very clear my views on Cuba. And I think that what we are trying to do is work together in order to get change in the system, democratization there and do everything that we possibly can. We are, as a result of these acts, and the Torricelli bill also, working very hard on a number of tracks, and we are trying to encourage everyone to follow through on commitments to push for fundamental changes there. We continue to implement Title IV of the Libertad Act while negotiating with the EU on investment disciplines. That is the reason we have taken the actions that we have. And we think it's very important the kinds of things, pushing the EU, the EU has, I think, taken some important steps here, we are working with them.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As far as the Pope's visit is concerned, I was most impressed in viewing his visit and seeing the great outpouring of love for him and the underlying faith of the Cuban people, and I think that we need to support the Cuban people more in their quest for freedom.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Is the Administration contemplating any change in U.S.-Cuba policy?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Well, I gather that there is legislation on the Senate side where there is some thought about changing some of the food issues. Chairman Helms has a piece of legislation, so does Senator Dodd, and I said that we would look at those.
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Just one last point, I think it's very important for us to give the correct information regarding humanitarian aid to Cuba, that the United States is in fact the biggest donor country of food and medicine to Cuba. We by far export more food and medicine to Cuba than all of the countries combined. There is no embargo on food and medicine, medical supplies, and it goes from people to people. We do not give it to the Castro regime, but I think that the State Department could be more aggressive in highlighting the truth about U.S. policy which allows humanitarian donations and, in fact, we are the biggest donor country that Cuba has in terms of food and medicine and medical supplies.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congresswoman, that is usually my answer to the question, so we sound alike on this.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I thank you for making a very important point, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne.
    Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me commend you for your endurance. I guess it's good that you jog, start out early this morning and keep you going through lunch.
    Let me just thank you for your recent visit to Africa, and the mission that, perhaps, at the United Nations we could have done more in Rwanda. I think that it was certainly appreciated by the Heads of State, and I also commend you for going into places where perhaps people suggested that you not go, but that we need to see new governments try to make it. Second, I would like to commend the President for mentioning Africa in the State of the Union address for the first time that I can recall, and third, about his proposed trip to Africa, and I hope that it continues as planned.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Let me just quickly say three fast things. I think that we should strongly support the ACRI. It's been mentioned. We need to look at Liberia. You know the new government there has attempted to make a new judiciary, they put a human rights group in, they put opposition people in, but they continually lack cooperation from State, and I would hope that we look at Liberia. And, also, the maritime issue which has become very serious, because it is a big income producer for the country of Liberia. And, finally, I would just like to ask if we could work, since the question of extradition came up, if we could work on the extradition of a Rwandan, Interahamwe, who's in this country and we won't extradite him out of the United States to go to trials at the Rwanda tribunal. Finally, I think that we had a good meeting with the Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic representatives, but I think we ought to look at accession to EU at the same time with NATO because there are people saying they should be more integrated. And as the marching season begins, I would hope that we would suggest to the authorities there that, especially since there will be a new investigation of Bloody Sunday, we try to prevent problems from reoccurring. Thank you.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you, Congressman. Let me just say that I'm very glad to be able to work with you on the African issues. I feel really good about my trip and I think that the President is looking forward to his, and there are the issues that you've mentioned and we should spend more time talking about Liberia.
    On the NATO-EU, I think that what we have been opposed to is a pause and a linking of those two particular issues because the EU is not a security organization and we're not in it, and we believe that it's important for NATO to expand, but we can talk more about that.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Secretary, we'll let you go in 1 minute. I'm the only one left, but I haven't had my chance to ask a couple questions.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Yes, please.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just echoing some of the sentiments that I mentioned over breakfast, and I am frankly appalled at the human rights record of this Administration, and as an individual, you're respected throughout the world as someone who holds human rights in a high regard, yet this Administration waives human rights requirements of Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam in order to make sure that some big businesses can profit from basically slave labor; labor that's unable to organize or the dictatorial regime that beats down any opponents that would like higher labor standards in Vietnam. We do the same in China where their administration basically has decided that commercial interests are much more important than human rights issues. You and I may disagree on what we're doing in Cambodia, but I would suggest that you pay attention to what your own State Department is doing in Cambodia and Afghanistan, where our stated positions are different from what your people on the ground are actually doing in opposing tyranny in Afghanistan, opposing the Talliban. My efforts to try to fight the Talliban have been thwarted by your own people. In Cambodia, where Hun Sen is trying to eliminate the potential for democracy in that country, our own ambassador seems to have been pooh-poohing his crimes and treating him with respect rather than treating him as a tyrant. In Burma, of course, we have and the Administration has opposed this, but we see the pipelines moving forward and things such as that.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    These are all signs around the world, whenever there's tyranny versus freedom and that standing for freedom is going to cost anybody in the commercial sector a couple bucks, this Administration sides with the people who are the tyrants, the human rights abusers. On the subcontinent, we see abuses by India and other type abuses in other countries, and the Administration is mum about it. What do we expect? Isn't it fair, then, for me to decide that human rights is a low priority for this Administration?
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, I hate to say this, since we're sitting here alone, you are wrong.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I am very proud of our human rights record. We have just issued our State Department human rights report. I think it is a central part of our foreign policy. Wherever I go, I make that point very clear. There is not tradeoff between human rights and commercial interests, ever. And I am very proud of what we are doing.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me give you an example. You come to us now and are asking for billions of dollars more of our tax dollars to be pumped into the IMF for these bailouts of these financial institutions in the Pacific, and then we look at the other end, we see the Suharto family that has held Indonesia in a grip, and it's an iron grip for the last two decades, with billions of dollars worth of assets. Instead of trying to get the money from the Suharto family crooks, and the criminals associated with them in Indonesia and in the other Pacific countries, you're asking the American people just to shovel out another $14 billion.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. First of all, it's not costing the American people. This is a credit union kind of thing, as I described. Second, I think that we have to deal with the problem that we have which is a serious financial crisis that could affect the United States. The IMF is the best way to handle it. We are also dealing with the issues of reform in Indonesia and working on trying to get a better succession process.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, I think, Congressman, what is very important as one does American foreign policy, is to keep all our interests in line, and have a principled and pragmatic foreign policy. But I can tell you this, that I stand down to no one in my support for our human rights policy and we pursue it as actively as we can.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that part of our IMF bailout plan is to put in jail the crooks in the Pacific who've stolen tens of billions of dollars and try to recover some of that money before we put American money at risk. And now in terms of the central issue today, which is Saddam Hussein. Here we are again dealing with a dictator. And this isn't just a problem of this Administration, but past Administrations did not do their job.
    And I would hope, and you have my support and the support of Congress, in taking aggressive action, military action, if necessary, in order not to contain Saddam Hussein, which is what your words are, ''contain Saddam Hussein''—we shouldn't be containing Saddam Hussein, we should be trying to replace Saddam Hussein. We should try to eliminate him from power. We could start by declaring him a war criminal. The man still holds Kuwaiti POWs, he's committed eco-terrorism when he was in that battle, he's a total violator of human rights. Let's aim at getting rid of him rather than militarily striking innocent people in Iraq.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Congressman, as I said, you know, none of us would shed any tears if he weren't there and I have said very publicly and again here, that we look forward to working with a post-Saddam regime. And I think that we must ask ourselves, are we ready to mount again a campaign with half a million Americans for a ground force?
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me put it this way. I believe that in dealing with Saddam Hussein—first of all, we should have dealt with him back—and it wasn't your responsibility then—we should have killed that human being and eliminated him from the planet, whatever you want to say, at that time. And it should've been a priority that we didn't leave until Saddam Hussein was dead. If we were going to put the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk, we should have thought more of their lives than that of Saddam Hussein. However, now, if we just continue in trying to contain this man, rather than eliminate him from power, I guess you're trying to say that unless we're willing to put another 500,000 troops on the ground, we will try to contain him rather than eliminate him.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. It is our assumption that the only way to do this is with a large ground force.
    Congressman, I hate to be rude, but I'm holding up the President of Bulgaria, that I'm having for lunch.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. There's only one guy that I'd say is more important than the President of Bulgaria, and that's Chris Smith, for 1 minute and then we'll let you go.
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony today. I just wanted to get back briefly on the issue of the conferences—and, again, I hope the press takes note of this—we're not talking about merely attending conferences. I would like to point you to something that's right on the internet. It is called the Family Planning Law Reform Meeting, a symposium on the removal of legal barriers to sexual and reproductive health in Franco-African countries being held in Benin on March 24 to 26. It says it aims to make recommendations on strategies for the repeal of the law affecting African countries on abortion. Could anything be more clear? This is right off the internet, in terms of what we're talking about. The International Planned Parenthood Federation gets $75 million and much more through some of its affiliates. It does not merely attend, it sponsors such conferences which are really aimed at toppling the pro-life laws of other countries.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Chris, we should let her answer that because she's late.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Let me just say this, the Congressman and I are not going to agree on this subject, and I respect him deeply for his views. I think there are very good men and women on both sides of this issue. I would just ask all of you, let us vote on this issue, up or down, and let's send a bill to the President. That's all I can ask you, because otherwise we're having a shutting down of our foreign policy.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. And if you could provide us with an estimate of the full civilian and military costs for deployments in Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq. I know your staff's been working on that, I would appreciate that.
    Secretary ALBRIGHT. I shall do so.
    [Secretary Albright's reply appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I would ask for unanimous consent that we have 5 legislative days to submit written questions to the Secretary, and——
    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as the Secretary leaves, and thank you, Madam Secretary, let me just remind the Committee—this needs to be in the record—we voted in excess of six times on this issue last time, so it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of action now. I thank you.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]


    Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."