onstrated competence, a broad range of experience. I think she has provided consistently sound advice. She has a superior ability, well beyond the one liners to which Secretary Christopher referred, a superior ability to explain international issues both to Americans and to people abroad and to convey U.S. policies and principles.

I think above all she has a deep understanding of the values and interests that are involved in the development of foreign policy. Her own personal experiences speak eloquently to that fact as does her appreciation that freedom and democracy can be challenged both from the far right and from the far left, which, of course, she experienced in her own lifetime having on the one hand to flee from fascism and on the other hand from communism.

So we have someone here who I think has a very deep and profound understanding of these matters and I strongly welcome this nomination. I look forward to supporting it.

I am only going to put one question, or one area of questioning to you. I may put a few questions in that area. You cannot do it all by yourself, obviously. The Foreign Service is supposed to be a trained cadre to provide expert advice to the Secretary, to the President, to the Congress. We invest a lot of resources in trying to develop a first rate Foreign Service. Other countries do the same. It is my perception that they seem somehow to perhaps make better use of their foreign services, professional foreign services. I wonder what ideas you have in that area.

What can be done to elevate the morale of the career Foreign Service to assure that their counsel and advice is heard at the highest political levels in our government? I am obviously interested in the issue of career ambassadors or, to put it another way, noncareer ambassadors, whichever way you want to look at it. I would be interested in your thinking on that subject and any other ideas you may have in which the Congress, working with you, might improve the morale and the abilities of the Foreign Service, including, I think, some other things.

I think in the old days it used to be a glamorous thing to live abroad. Everyone thought that was a large plus for the service. Now it is really seen as a minus, as a negative.

I would just point out that more Ambassadors have been killed in the line of service in the last 30 years than generals or admirals. We have lost a number of Ambassadors who have been killed serving our country abroad.

In your thoughts on the general subject of the Foreign Service, particularly the ambassadorial issue, would be greatly appreciate. Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Senator. In terms of my own life, I think I really am the embodiment of the turbulence of the Twentieth Century as well as of the tolerance and optimism of the United States. So I thank you.

In terms of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service that is so supportive of American foreign policy, I would hope that we could do everything to recognize the extremely fine work that they do. I find the discussion of political ambassador versus career ambassador a little hard being a political ambassador myself.

Senator SARBANES. And I have often stated that there is room for political ambassadors, and you are one of the prime examples of that I may say.

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Having said that, I do believe that there should be a high preponderance of professional Foreign Service officers not only as Ambassadors but within the whole system. I have the highest regard for the work that they do under the most difficult conditions.

I think that one of the reasons that you will hear me more often than not talk about the necessity of having an adequate foreign affairs budget is so that our Foreign Service officers and civil servants can operate in a way that maximizes their abilities.

It is very hard to believe, frankly, some of the conditions which do exist. I know a lot of people talk about the big, fancy Embassies. But I have travelled, for instance, in the new Embassies in the Newly Independent States. Our Ambassador in Moldova had to wash dishes in the bathtub because there was no running water. She had no functioning kitchen. Our Ambassadors in Armenia and Azerbaijan, also new Embassies, had a hard time finding places to work except for the small, secure rooms.

This is really hard to believe, but I have lived and worked now in New York for 3 years. The telephone system between New York and Washington through the State Department fails and we have to go out and use phone booths. So I think that our vaunted structure needs help and our Ambassadors and our Foreign Service need support.

I think you talked about the security issue. It did used to be a pretty fancy job. But that was before there were threats on the lives of Americans, on our people serving abroad. I will never forget the funeral of Ambassador Fraser and the others who served. Our Ambassadors and our Foreign Service and Civil Service are the bravest people who serve their country very, very well. I hope very much that we can work together to make sure that they have the proper support and respect.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Hagel.
Senator HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Ambassador, welcome. Congratulations on a very privileged recognition of your talent, your ability, and your commitment to this country.

I, too, echo those who have expressed confidence in you and congratulations, especially about your personal story and your journey through life. But I especially want to recognize you as an individual who is a real role model for this country. In a day when we do not have enough high standard role models for not just women but for all of us, you have fulfilled that role very effectively.

You and I had an opportunity to visit a little bit yesterday, and I appreciate that. If I might be so bold as a one day-not quitean almost one day freshman Senator to give you some advice about Secretaries of State, I have heard with great interest this morning my new colleagues give us a little historical perspective on former Secretaries of State. Me, being a Senator from Nebraska, one of those former Secretaries of State mentioned this morning is William Jennings Bryan. Also mentioned in the context of a Secretary of State were those who have risen to, some way, higher office, to President. Some would question whether that was a higher office than a Secretary of State. But, nonetheless, if that might be on

43

your agenda, recall that Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan ran for President three times. I would strongly suggest you not use his model if that be in your future. [General laughter]

Madam Ambassador, I, like two of my distinguished colleagues, served in Vietnam. I was an Army infantry sergeant in 1968. I, like everyone on this committee, all Americans, have a great concern about when, why, where we commit our troops, for what reason, and what are our vital interests.

I look back over the last few years and look at Somalia, a disaster. I read reports recently on Zaire. There were some in the administration talking about committing American troops to Zaire. I would think it would benefit this committee, Madam Ambassador, certainly me, if you would reflect a little bit on your concept of committing American troops. And certainly you will be in that position, unfortunately, and you probably will have to make some of those decisions over the next 4 years.

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Thank you very much, Senator. I can assure you that I have reached my highest aspirations.

Senator BIDEN. And constitutionally, you can't have any others. Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Yes, and the Constitution takes care of it. Senator SARBANES. Before this rumor gains wings, we ought to underscore what the Constitution says.

Senator BIDEN. Although we have 27 Constitutional Amendments, we would need another one.

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Yes, this is not one of them. It's "weren't born here." [General laughter]

I think you have asked a very key question, Senator Hagel, because I think as we look at our responsibilities and what options we have, the use of force is clearly one of the most important issues upon which the President and his advisors have to act.

I can assure you that it is an issue that is considered with the greatest care.

You asked about vital national interests. The U.S. vital national interests, where we would commit force, if necessary, have to do with the protection of our territory, our people, our economic lifeline and our way of life, and those of our allies.

There one should not hesitate to use a mixture of force and diplomacy, and our military are trained better than any other military in the world to undertake that kind of action.

There are cases where we have interests, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, there are regional conflicts sometimes which, if left unattended, might turn into larger wars.

I would never advise using American forces where other means are available, where there is not the support of Congress and the people, where there is not a possibility of or where there is no exit strategy, and where there is not the likelihood or the reality of winning. But I think we need to understand that we have the best forces in the world who serve very well and honorable.

The cases which you mentioned are ones where we can talk in more detail about those. But I think we have learned many lessons and I, along with everybody else, am deeply regretful of the lives lost in Somalia.

I think we have other options than using American forces, and one of the reasons that I, as Ambassador at the United Nations,

worked hard in order to develop the peacekeeping mechanism was so that other nations could, in fact, share the burden or carry the full burden in operations that are important to us where we do not have to participate, where it is done through the United Nations or a coalition of the willing.

Senator HAGEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Kerry.
Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Ambassador, welcome. I, needless to say, join completely with my colleagues in their comments about how pleased we are to have you here and what a superb nomination we think yours is. I want to thank you for taking the time to be so gracious to my daughters yesterday. They were about to be kicked out of the office and they said, "no, no, we want to meet Madeleine Albright." And afterward they said, "boy, she's really cool." [General laughter] So you've got it made.

I thank also the Chairman and the ranking member for helping to move this process along.

Madam Ambassador, I, for 8 years, served as chairman of the subcommittee that deals with your budget, and 2 years as ranking member. I have watched the budget for international affairs decrease from some $37 billion in today's dollars in 1987 down to $18 billion today. I am deeply concerned about how we are going to get the Members of Congress and others to recognize that, while yes, we need to balance the budget, only about 1 percent of the entire budget of the United States is wrapped up in international affairs spending.

You and others of my colleagues have appropriately pointed to the fact that with the end of the cold war and the shift away from the bipolar world we dealt with then, there is now maybe a five part foreign policy mission: proliferation issues, both conventional and nuclear; transboundary issues of enormous consequence such as the environment; people and resource issues relating to refugees, population, and food; the question of the rise in nationalism and fundamentalism, and all of the tensions that that plays out in normal and not so normal conflicts; and, finally, international crime. I would point out that international crime goes beyond the focus on drugs. I would suggest that offshore havens for money, money laundering, trafficking in human beings, extraordinary increases in illicit weapons trafficking—all of these rip and tear at the fabric of our relationships.

So it seems to me that personal diplomacy is, in fact, far more important. None of those issues can be worked on adequately through a fax machine or a computer. It really takes building relationships, and it takes personal diplomacy. Yet we have been closing posts, closing missions, diminishing the ability of personal diplomacy to be effective.

I wonder if you share that perception and if it is your intention to try to make one of your priorities the effort to get the Congress to really open its eyes or perhaps shift its views as to how we are making some of these choices with respect to our own commitment to the complexity of these relationships in this new world.

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Senator, thank you very much for all the nice things you said, and I'm glad your daughters think I'm cool. My daughters think you're cool. [General laughter]

Senator KERRY. Have we taken a vote on that? [General laughter]

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. I think that you have stated eloquently the problems of modern diplomacy. I think that there are those who believe that a lot can be done through technology, and we have tried our best actually to do things through technology, though you might be stunned at the level of computers that the State Department has.

Senator KERRY. Actually, I'm not. They came from my State. I know the history. [General laughter]

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. But I think you have said very well the personal aspect of this is just completely telling in terms of the relationships that one develops, the necessity of diplomat finesse and nuances that come from a full understanding of the people that you are dealing with in a particular country.

I think we have done what we can to consolidate and close consulates and embassies. But I think we move any further in this at our own peril because not only do we undercut the kinds of diplomatic activities that you have talked about, but we are undercutting services to Americans. When American business people want help in order for us to be able to talk about our products or to try to make sure that investment capabilities are there, we need our Embassies there to help.

When Americans who are traveling more than ever need help when they are abroad for emergency reasons, an adequate number of diplomats are important. We also want to make sure that people come to the United States. So the visas make a great difference. So I think we have to understand the very vital role that our diplomats play.

I know I might be treading on a difficult issue here, but I would hope that many of you would actually travel abroad more. I think that then many of you would see what tremendous service our diplomats carry out abroad, what a great job they do, and how they know the countries in which they are and how they really work exceptionally hard.

So I hope we can do a lot to help them.

Senator KERRY. Before I get cut off, can I just ask you this quickly. In discussing China and the obvious importance of paying more attention to China and replenishing that relationship, would you talk also about the SLORC in Burma and the relationship of China to SLORC, which rules unlawfully with abuses in human rights. How do we balance our approach to Burma in the context of building this relationship with China, which has obvious interests there and increasing influence?

Ambassador ALBRIGHT. Yes.

I am one of the few administration officials that has been to Burma. I was there a couple of years ago, after I had been at the Beijing Conference, and I visited with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Prize winner, who is really the epitome of the potential for democratization of Burma.