lomatically, legally and financially. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back to the committee.

Out of the destruction of September 11 came seeds of opportunity in my view, and I know you believe that as well. The challenge for the United States now seems to me to ensure that we seize the opportunities that are available to build a new framework for international affairs for the 21st century.

In that regard, we will be interested in hearing from the Secretary today and in months ahead on several key issues, and I'd just like to highlight a handful.

First, are we doing enough to secure our victory in Afghanistan? America's armed forces have waged a brilliant campaign to end the tyrannical rule of the Taliban, but having spent 4 days not too long ago in Kabul, and I know Mr. Secretary, you have been there as well, it is clear that much remains to be done.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements remain active in many parts of the country. Security is inadequate not only in the countryside, but even in Kabul itself, and the task of reconstruction of a nation devastated by two decades of war is immense, although it does not require a Marshall Plan.

We have to complete the job in Afghanistan, militarily against terrorists and the Taliban operatives, and through U.S. participation in a multinational security force in my view, and economically in a partnership with other nations to rebuild the country, which was started in Tokyo.

Second, what are the implications for the President's declaration last week that North Korea, Iran and Iraq comprise an "axis of evil"? Was this merely a rhetorical device designed to lump together three nations who we have long considered dangerous rogue states, or does it indicate a significant shift in U.S. policy toward these nations?

I agree with the President that each nation poses a security threat to the United States and to the civilized world. But they are hardly identical or allied with each other, and our policies toward them have up to now involved very different strategies.

For example, working with our partners in South Korea and Japan, we have until now and maybe continue as well to embrace a policy of engagement with North Korea, so as to achieve an agreement for a verifiable end to the country's long-range missile program and sales as well as their nuclear program. Does this mean that that approach is no longer in play here?

Third, what is the current state of U.S. strategic and nonproliferation policy? Since the Secretary was last before us, there have been several significant events. One, the administration announced the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Two, the administration concluded after a lengthy review that most ongoing nonproliferation programs with Russia and other Eurasian states should be sustained. And the new National Intelligence Estimate affirmed that the United States remains at greater risk from the nonmissile delivery of a weapon of mass destruction than from the delivery of ballistic missiles. Do we have the balance right in terms of our expenditures?

I hope the Secretary can update us on the administration's discussions with Russia, on mutual arms reductions, particularly the

question of whether the administration intends to reach an agreement on a binding treaty that would be submitted to the Senate. Any understanding with Russia on the future of our respective nuclear arsenals must, in my view, rest on more than a handshake. And let me make my view clear. Any formal agreement on mutual force reductions should be in the form of a treaty.

The Senate did not allow the previous administration to do an end run around it on arms control and I don't believe we should allow this one to do it either, if that was the intent, and I do not know what the intent is.

I also believe that the events of September 11 and the subsequent discovery of information about al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, combined with the National Intelligence Estimate, make it imperative that we focus more resources on what should be our highest national security priority, and that is preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological

weapons.

And finally, is the President's budget for international affairs adequate to protect our national security? The President requests $25.4 billion, which is less than the amount provided in 2002, if you include the emergency additions we added to the budget.

The question is if you take that away, there is about a 6 percent increase. Is that enough? True, as compared to the regular appropriations contemplated before September 11, this budget, as I said, contains a 5.9 percent increase in nominal terms. But these are not regular times, as the President has correctly emphasized. The budget this year should be measured against the total spending for last year. By that standard, the budget for fiscal 2003 appears to assume that we can return to the status quo ante.

Aside from the promised expansion of the Peace Corps, a development that I welcome, and a continuation of the Secretary's proposal to address the personnel shortfall in the Department, which I think is critical, there appear to be few significant initiatives or increases in the foreign affairs budget that reflect the changed world in which we live.

The President's budget provides for a significant increase in the Department of Defense and homeland security, but it appears to fall short in providing enough resources for our first line of defense, our diplomatic corps. I might add, I just spoke today with our charge, former Ambassador in Afghanistan, and the Secretary makes this point all the time-more of our diplomatic corps are at risk with less protection, although, by the way, these young Marines you all trained, they are something else. They are something else. But at any rate, diplomats are more at risk than even our men in uniform. More have been killed in recent years, and so I want to talk to the Secretary about that. I know he shares the

same concerns.

Let me turn now to my friend, Senator Helms, who has had a brilliant career in this committee and this is the beginning of the final lap, and I expect it will be a sprint between now and the time this Congress ends. But I welcome his comments. I should say, Mr. Chairman, when you finish speaking, maybe we should leave and vote so the Secretary can be uninterrupted in his statement. [The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.

Today the Committee on Foreign Relations begins a series of hearings to review American foreign policy in the wake of the attacks on the United States last September. The essential objectives of the hearings are two-fold: to highlight the serious national security challenges facing this country and to ensure that we are allocating our resources properly to meet those challenges.

We begin with Secretary of State Powell, who has done a first-rate job in guiding American foreign policy, particularly since the attacks of September 11. The administration has skillfully assembled and led an international coalition to wage the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and to attack the threat of terrorism across all fronts-military, diplomatic, legal and financial. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back to the committee.

Out of the destruction of September 11 can come seeds of opportunity. The challenge for the United States is to ensure that we seize the opportunity to build a new framework for international affairs for the 21st century.

In that regard, we will be interested in hearing from the Secretary, today and in the months ahead, on several key issues. Let me just highlight a handful:

First, are we doing enough to secure our victory in Afghanistan? America's armed forces have waged a brilliant campaign to end the tyrannical rule of the Taliban. But having spent four days in Kabul last month, it is clear that much remains to be done:

al-Qaeda and Taliban elements remain active in many parts of the country;

• security is inadequate-not only in the countryside, but in Kabul itself;

⚫ and the task of reconstruction of a nation devastated by two decades of war is immense.

We must complete the job in Afghanistan

• militarily against terrorist and Taliban operatives, and through U.S. participation in a multi-national security force,

• and economically, in partnership with other nations, to rebuild the country. Second, what are the implications of the President's declaration last week that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq comprise an "axis of evil?" Was this merely a rhetorical device, designed to lump together three nations we have long considered dangerous rogue states, or does it indicate a significant shift in U.S. policy toward these nations?

I agree with the President that each nation poses a security threat to the United States and to the civilized world. But they are hardly identical or allied with each other, and our policies toward them have involved different strategies. For example, working with our partners in South Korea and Japan, we have until now embraced a policy of engagement with North Korea so as to achieve an agreement for a verifiable end to that country's long-range missile programs and sales. Does the President intend to abandon this approach?

Third, what is the current state of U.S. strategic and non-proliferation policy? Since the Secretary was last before us, there have been several significant events: ⚫ the administration announced that the United States will withdraw from the ABM Treaty;

⚫ the administration concluded, after a lengthy review, that most ongoing nonproliferation programs with Russia and other Eurasian states should be sustained;

⚫ and the new National Intelligence Estimate affirm that the United States remains at greater risk from a non-missile delivery of a weapon of mass destruction than from delivery by a ballistic missile.

I hope the Secretary can update us on the administration's discussions with Russia on mutual arms reductions, particularly on the question of whether the administration intends to reach agreement on a binding treaty that would be submitted to the Senate.

Any understanding with Russia on the future of our respective nuclear arsenals must, in my view, rest on more than a handshake. Let me make clear my view: any formal agreement on mutual force reductions should be in the form of a treaty. The Senate did not allow the previous administration to do an end run around it on. arms control, and I don't believe we will allow this one to do so, either.

I also believe the events of September 11-and the subsequent discovery of information about al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, combined with the National Intelligence Estimate—make it imperative that we focus more re

sources on what should be our highest national security priority: preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Finally, is the President's budget for international affairs adequate to protect our national security? The President's request of $25.4 billion is less than the amount provided in fiscal 2002, after including the emergency funds provided after September 11.

True, as compared against the regular appropriations contemplated before September 11, the budget contains a 5.9 percent increase in nominal terms.

But these are not regular times as the President has correctly emphasized. And the budget this year should be measured against the total spending for last year. By that standard, the budget for fiscal 2003 appears to assume that we can return to the status quo ante.

Aside from the promised expansion for the Peace Corps-a development that I welcome and the continuation of the Secretary's proposal to address the personnel shortfall in the Department, there appear to be few significant initiatives or increases in the foreign affairs budget that reflect the changed world in which we now live.

The President's budget provides for a significant increase for the Department of Defense and homeland security, but appears to fall short in providing enough resources for our first line of defense our diplomatic corps.

Let me turn now to my friend, Senator Helms, who is beginning his final year in the Senate, for any comments he may have. Then we will hear from the Secretary.

Senator HELMS. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, let us resolve next time this gentleman appears before this committee to make arrangements to use the auditorium studio because we have so many young people out there in the hallways, about a half an acre of them and they want to see the Secretary and they cannot see him. This is a fairly large hearing room. But anyway—

The CHAIRMAN. I thought they were here to see Bertie. I did not know.

Senator HELMS. It is a tribute to you Mr. Secretary, I think, that so many young people are interested in what you say and what you do.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Secretary, I bet that all of us are aware how delightful the occasion is when you visit the Foreign Relations Committee. You always attract many visitors and this morning is certainly no alternative.

First, Mr. Secretary, I am confident that you probably agreed that the President's State of the Union Address the other night was reminiscent of, to a lot of us, President Reagan's appearances. They had the same technique of saying the right thing at the right time in the right way. Both came at times when great challenges confronted our Nation, and both set out to overcome them, and in the process, give confidence to the American people which is certainly evident in the case of President Bush.

President Reagan defeated communism. President Bush, no doubt about it, will defeat terrorists. I believe that. America's enemies never obey the laws of war, or for that matter, any other laws. Their twisted and evil methods are intended to put at risk every innocent American, every man and woman and child in this country, and that is a challenge we got to face up to. And that is why, Mr. Secretary, I applaud your clear understanding that the terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay absolutely are not, are not prisoners of war, and in no way do they merit any legal protections of the Geneva Conventions.

There is an important higher truth which you obviously have grasped, my friend, to be in the custody of the United States is to enjoy the rights conferred by a decent people. Our military forces, the world has never known finer, have restored civilization to Afghanistan, but our country's greatest challenges lie ahead. We must finish the business of Afghanistan and bin Laden before we undertake new military commitments, and then, Mr. Secretary, Saddam must go.

He is anathema to the well-being of the people of the Middle East, as well as to our own national security. There is no doubt that the people of Iraq will happily get rid of the scourge known by the entire world as Saddam Hussein. But it needs to be known that U.S. policy and if necessary, U.S. air power, support them.

Sooner or later the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea must remain to confront a choice, to live in peace with the world or to join Omar and his life on an ash heap of history. The President warned the other night of the "axis of evil," Iran, Iraq, North Korea and that he will not, as he put it, wait on events while dangers gather.

Mr. Secretary, you and the President have the full support of Congress and the American people whenever and wherever you back up that statement.

Now, Mr. Secretary, this is my final year in the Senate, and I do not intend that it be particularly idle. Several other issues beside the war on terrorism merit the immediate attention, in my judgment, of both the Congress and the administration.

Now then, first the next round of the NATO expansion should begin at the Prague summit in November. I see no reason why the most successful alliance in history should not incorporate the Baltic nations and other countries that share our values and goals and interests. And I think we must put aside the notion that Russia may soon have a veto over NATO's decisions as Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary General rather foolishly, in my judgment, suggested.

Our new strategic relationship with Russia must be conducted in a manner to advance our national interests while promoting Democratic change in Russia. Today, Russia is selling missiles and nuclear technology to Iran, a charter member of the "axis of evil," and a country that poses, to quote President Bush, “a grave and growing danger to the United States."

Russia's war on the innocent people of Chechnya and Moscow's refusal to seek a negotiated settlement have resulted in more casualties than the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. The lawless environment of Chechnya is certain to become a breeding ground for terrorists.

And third, we must move beyond the outdated relics of the cold war such as the ABM Treaty that in no way, no way advances the security interests of the United States. We must stand firmly behind our intentions to build and deploy ballistic missile defenses.

The attacks of September 11 were devastating enough. We must do everything possible to make certain that any further attack will not be a nuclear one.

Fourth, we cannot forget our commitment to democracy and rule of law around the world, particularly here in our own Western