Finally, I would emphasize one essential point: before recommending one penny of American taxpayers' money to foreign assistance programs, or to multilateral development banks, or to bureaucratic demands at home, I think you and we, together, should ask ourselves whether the expenditure or expenditures-are truly in America's interest.

Now I recognize and welcome the committee's distinguished new ranking member, Senator Biden. Senator Biden and I came to the Senate at the same time. We held up our hands roughly at the same time. We were both elected in 1972, and I look forward to continuing the cooperation that has existed and which I have enjoyed with Senator Pell, a true gentlemen if I ever saw one.

We also welcome, by the way, the newest members of our committee. They are, on our side, Senators Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Bill Frist, and Sam Brownback; and on the Democrats' side, there is the fellow who attended the University of North Carolina, the Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. We welcome you all. Joe.

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator Wellstone is proof that there are some liberals who still teach down there. That's where he said he learned every one of his instincts, down there. It was not in Wisconsin. [General laughter]

I would like to thank Ambassador Albright for giving us occasion to bring this committee together to meet my new colleagues, although I must admit, Mr. Chairman, when we last met I did not anticipate coming back and seeing so many new faces on that side of the aisle.

But my congratulations to you all. I look forward to working with

you.

The CHAIRMAN. I tried to warn you, too.

Senator BIDEN. You did. You have been warning me for 24 years, and most of the time you have been right. [General laughter]

The Chairman indicated that we should look out for, we should keep an eye out for what the meteorologists have to say with regard to tomorrow. I find most of the press has approached me about why I switched roles in my party from Judiciary to here. They are looking at astrologists to see how you and I are going to get along.

I cite to them that they said the same thing when I was given the honor of taking over the Democratic position in the Judiciary Committee with Senator Strom Thurmond, and we have become very close friends. They still cannot figure it out. Hopefully, when we both end our tenure on this committee, they will be wondering why we are such close friends and why we cooperate so much.

I want to thank you publicly, Mr. Chairman, for your generous comments to me upon my reelection and yours as well, and the decision on my part to move over here, and for the way you have welcomed me. I want to also thank a man who I know is very close to you and is in the hospital now, your close friend Admiral Nance, for the generosity that he extended immediately after my win. Even now, as he is still recovering and recuperating, he is still working on the business of this committee. I wish him well.

Last, to get some of the internal Senate housekeeping things out of the way, with the indulgence of the Ambassador-and I am sure

at this moment she will indulge us in anything we wish to do, though that will change rapidly about the 21st of January, as it must with all Secretaries-I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing. I would note that I believe this is the first hearing scheduled for any nominee in the Senate. And your willingness-not just willingness, your enthusiasm to get moving-is much appreciated, and I am sure is appreciated by the Ambassador.

Ambassador Albright, it is truly a pleasure. We have known each other for a long time. I was here, as was the Chairman, back when Senator Muskie was here and you were with Senator Muskie. It is a pleasure to welcome you to this hearing. President Clinton should be commended in my view for having nominated such a distinguished professional to become our Nation's chief diplomat.

Your straight talk and tireless commitment to articulating and defending United States policies in the United Nations have won you the admiration of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Ambassador Albright, as you know, last year at this time nearly 20,000 U.S. military personnel were arriving in Bosnia as part of NATO's Implementation Force to guarantee the peace that enabled Europe's bloodiest conflict in the last two decades, actually since World War II, to essentially cease. IFOR has admirably achieved its goals of separating and substantially demobilizing the warring parties.

Last month, a much smaller American contingent began the Stabilization Force mission known as SFOR. I do not know where the Defense Department comes up with these acronyms, but there is SFOR. I hope at some point in this hearing you will explain in more detail what their specific mission is and how the administration believes SFOR will enable all of our troops to withdraw from Bosnia by mid-1998. That is a matter of significant concern to my colleagues, and I would note-to probably get you into trouble that you and I had a similar, shared view about what should be done about Bosnia before much was done. So I do not in any way suggest the policy is yours. But you are now inheriting it, and you are going to need to explain it to me and my colleagues on and off this committee in some additional detail, not merely today, but in the near-term.

As you know, I have been saying for several years that a practical precondition for a satisfactory resolution in Bosnia is bringing before the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague indicted persons who are accused of precipitating the Bosnian conflict and perpetrating the torture, rape, murder, and genocide there.

This, of course, is no small order. A range of options for apprehending the indicted persons has been suggested. They have included everything from the creation of a special international police force to doing nothing. I would welcome your discussing this critical question with our committee as well.

I know that you are primarily responsible for setting up the prosecutorial team and our effort in participating at these War Crimes Tribunals. But there is a lot of disagreement among our European friends and us as to what should be done from here. I would like to talk with you about that.

What steps, if any, should we take to encourage the democratic forces in neighboring Serbia, now in their seventh week of street

protests? What should our policy be? What should we be doing to encourage those forces, if anything?

Since my meeting with Vuk Draskovic in 1993, I have not believed that the majority of the Serbian people actually support Slobodan Milosevic, whom I personally-and I have been blunt enough to tell him this personally-hold responsible for the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia. But something I think at least I would like to know about is what, if anything, we should be doing and what encouragement, if any, should we be giving, and whether or not those forces are truly democratic forces. Or are they just another version of a nationalist impulse on the part of Serbians?

We and our allies face other opportunities and challenges in Europe. In July, you and your NATO counterparts will meet in Madrid to authorize the alliance to begin accession negotiations with selected prospective new members, something that Senator Lugar has been deeply involved with along with former Senator Nunn. If I am not mistaken, Senator Lugar has, at least by implication, suggested that this warrants a national debate, at least beginning here in this committee, a discussion as to what the consequences of NATO expansion are and how should it take place. We would like to hear from you about that.

If the accession negotiations succeed and if a sharing of NATO enlargement costs can be worked out that is fair to the American taxpayer, the admission of new members would cement those countries' return to their historical Western orientation and would increase the security of the entire continent. But there are costs associated with that, and we should be straight-forward with the American people and tell them what those costs may be in terms of actual commitment of financial resources.

But the new members must be brought into NATO with a sensitivity to the countries who are not invited into NATO at first or maybe at all, particularly Russia. The solidification of Russia's new democracy and free-market system is essential to international security. But NATO's proposed charter with Russia, I will tell you now, is the first question when my questioning period comes up. The only question I will ask you is to discuss with me NATO's proposed charter with Russia, along with enlargement of the alliance, a special relationship with Ukraine, and an expanded Partnership for Peace, which will, in all likelihood, become the cornerstones of a new European security architecture.

I am eager, if not in total today, over the next months, to hear your views on these prospects and the nature of that architecture. It is something you know a great deal about and something I am anxious to hear from you about.

Also, essential to our relationship with Russia is the conclusion of arms control treaties allowing us to destroy weapons of mass destruction that we aimed at each other for decades. Again, I want to give credit to Senator Lugar and to former Senator Nunn on the Nunn-Lugar amendment. But where do we go from here? What is the status of the START II Treaty in the Duma? Should we begin immediate discussions on a START III Treaty? Where do you see this moving?

I look forward to working with you for prompt approval of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Senate so that the United

States can be at the table as a voting party to protect our interests when the treaty goes into effect at the end of April.

Moreover, I hope you, Ambassador Albright, and your team will take steps to negotiate, as I said, a START III agreement with Russia once the Duma has ratified START II, so that we can further reduce our arsenals.

Elsewhere in Europe, we see in Cyprus a country that remains divided after more than 22 years. You were very supportive of our initiative on the creation of a special presidential envoy to Cyprus. But in my view, unfortunately, every president, Democrat and Republican, takes great interest initially in Cyprus, and then it goes

away.

There are some recent-in the minds of many, disturbing-incidents that have taken place with regard to Cyprus. I would like to urge the President and you to make the reunification of Cyprus one of our highest diplomatic priorities. I believe the most sensible policy is the complete demilitarization of the island, the withdrawal of all foreign forces, and firm guarantees for the safety and rights of minorities. But none of that will happen, in my view, unless it literally is put at the top of the agenda.

In Asia, China is rapidly emerging as the next great power of our era. Unfortunately, in my view, in the last several years it has not been acting like a responsible member of the international community, something the Chairman and I share a strong feeling about and are in agreement about.

I feel particularly strongly about Beijing's ongoing violation regarding the transfer of missile and nuclear technology. We face a daunting problem of how to insist that the People's Republic live up to its pledges on nonproliferation, human rights and trade practices while at the same time maintaining active relations with China's rapidly expanding economy. I think that is the Rubik's Cube of the 21st century, something that I would hope you would discuss with us and be in constant contact about with us.

More generally, I would appreciate hearing how our diplomacy can guarantee fair access around the world for American exports, which have become an essential part of our national economy and of that of my own little state of Delaware, which is a prime example.

Your positions and mine on the Middle East are well known, so I will not take up your valuable time in pursuing them in any detail. I know them too well, and we are not in disagreement.

Madam Ambassador, every one of your predecessors for the last 2 decades has had to listen-as my colleagues, or my more senior colleagues, have had to listen to my warnings of the mortal danger that international drug trafficking poses to this country. I know you would be disappointed if I treated you any differently than any former nominee. I will be very surprised if you take seriously what you will probably tell me today about your interest in this area. Every other Secretary of State has told me of his interest and has done nothing.

But I believe that illegal narcotics now pose as serious a threat to United States security as does any hostile foreign government. Too many of the people who work for you at State view themselves as foreign policy specialists who somehow do not want to dirty

their hands with the notion of dealing with the drug problem. It cannot be dealt with without being dealt with internationally.

Many of the folks who work with you carry very expensive leather briefcases, and I assume that they believe if they are not carrying treaties in those briefcases, or their lunch, there is not much else they should carry in there. I really am, as you can tell, incredibly frustrated after all these years at the failure of Presidents and Secretaries of State to take seriously what their role should be in dealing with the drug problem.

But I warned you I would say that. I will not bore you with that today. But I can assure you that, especially since we have been friends for so long-the good news is that we are friends; the bad news for you is that we're friends-I will be constantly contacting you and Mr. Jamie Rubin, who used to work for me, to pursue that issue with you.

Unfortunately, however, in my view, as I said, the State Department has given insufficient effort to this problem, and shortly after you are sworn in, I hope you will give me the time, once you get your sea legs down there, to actually sit down and hear my case as to what I believe firmly. I am absolutely convinced of the constructive role you and the State Department can play in dealing with what I believe is the number one domestic and foreign problem that we have.

In the first campaign of this President, Mr. Chairman, one of the campaign gurus put up a sign saying, "It's the economy, stupid." Well, I am here to tell you it's drugs, stupid, it's drugs, it's drugs, it's drugs, it's drugs. That is the crime problem. That is the economic problem facing inner cities and the source of that problem is international in large part. There is much we could do that we refuse to do, in my view.

Let me conclude by saying that with the demise of the Soviet Union, some have proffered the idea that we no longer need to be involved diplomatically all around the world. As a matter of fact, all of us just ran campaigns, and we learned from each of the various parties what are the emerging views based on the kinds of campaigns that were run, the issues that are proffered to the people of our States. One of the strong disagreements I had with the very capable and honorable man that who against me was: The fact was the Berlin Wall is down, the Soviet Union is gone, so why do we have any forces in Europe, why do we have an international budget at all?-a very, very strong, historically consistent, isolationist point of view emerging in slightly different language.

The debate that is going to take place over the remainder of this decade in this body-I believe in both parties-is going to be between internationalists and isolationists. Whether we call ourselves those things, that is the essence of what the debate is about. The American public is going to be making a judgment about our role in the world.

This neoisolationist thinking, I think, has taken root in many ways, among them the drastic reduction of our international affairs budget of the government.

I could not be more in disagreement with this notion. Because of the many new threats to our security, we must be more, in my