Thank you, Senator Warner, and you Senator Allen, for those
very kind and generous introductory remarks. I look forward
to working with both of you in the days ahead. The great
state of Virginia is well represented in the United States
Senate.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to have
been nominated by President-elect George W. Bush to be
America's 65th Secretary of State, and to be here seeking
your approval and the approval of the full Senate of that
nomination.

I am pleased that you have asked my wife, Alma, to be here.
This is a proud moment for us both and for our family.

Mr. Chairman, these proceedings mark the 64th renewal of a
long and honored tradition that began when the 26 members of
the first US Senate met to consider the nomination before
them, that of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

When Jefferson took office in 1790, a cynical and tired
Europe laughed in derision at the thought that "popular
government" - as it was called in that day - might work in
even one country, much less the world.

And all of us can remember just two decades ago when noted
experts in academic journals wrote of the weakness and
possible demise of democratic institutions in the face of
dictatorial power.

We know that those articles were appearing at the very
moment when Jefferson's ideas of liberty and self-government
were about to prove another generation of cynics wrong.

Ideas that were going to, as Jefferson prayed, "flow through
time" and "spread their happy influence over the face of the
earth," as people behind the iron curtain and around the
world threw off the yoke of totalitarianism.

Jefferson's ideas and Jefferson's prayers were ahead of the
time in which he lived and ahead of the man himself.

Let us pause during this week of celebration of the life of
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and reflect on how Dr. King
helped to answer Jefferson's prayers of freedom for Black
Americans whose forebearers were held to be property,
slaves, in Jefferson's custody.

I am before you today as Jefferson's admiring successor,
thankful for all the sacrifices that were made by Dr. King
and so many others to make this American dream possible. A
dream that I hope will continue to inspire my fellow
Americans and people around the world.

There is still so much more to be done here at home and
overseas.

President-elect George W. Bush understands that dark shadows
still linger over the edges of the American dream for many.
He intends to remove those shadows. He will be a president
for all Americans. And he will be a leader who will
faithfully represent the ideas of freedom and justice to the
world.

And for those who believe that America's emphasis on human
rights in the world may wane during the coming
administration, I say simply, keep watching. President-
elect Bush will always be mindful of the sanctity of the
individual as opposed to the state, and the precious rights
that keep that sanctity intact. From political prisoners to
the rights of women, there will be no diminishment of
concern or action.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am no stranger to this
committee.

I remember working late nights in 1987 with Senator Helms to
finish the INF Treaty which resulted in the destruction of
an entire class of nuclear weapons. I remember testifying
at hearings chaired by Senator Biden on the CFE Treaty which
reduced the conventional threat in Europe.

We worked together then in a spirit of cooperation to
benefit the nation. If confirmed, I promise you that I will
follow that spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship in all
my dealings with the committee and with the Congress.

We will need to work well together because we have a great
challenge before us. But it is not a challenge of survival.
It is a challenge of leadership. For it is not a dark and
dangerous ideological foe we confront, but the overwhelming
power of millions of people who have tasted freedom. It is
our own incredible success that we face.

I have seen that success in the seven years since I stepped
down from the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

More and more nations moving onto the path of democracy and
the free enterprise system.

Here at home a soaring economy, driven by the power of the
information and technology revolutions.

The rise of democracy and the power of the information
revolution combine to leverage each other. Until recently,
I was on the board of directors of one of the hundreds of
companies in the front ranks of this information revolution.

From that vantage point, I had a chance to see some of the
wonderful developments that are transforming our world with
breathtaking speed and dramatic depth.

Over one hundred million people are connected by this
company and its various services. They can instant-message,
they can e-mail, they can trade photos, papers, ideas,
dreams, likes and dislikes -- all without customs posts,
visas, passports, tariffs, guard towers, or any other way
for governments to interfere. With the speed of light, they
can communicate. With the speed of light, the concept of
freedom can travel around the world.

If such ideas move around now with the speed of light, they
are also like the light - darkness cannot withstand them.
Eventually, they will flow into every dark place and
illuminate that place for the betterment of humankind.

Two of the most important of these ideas are democracy and
capitalism. They are like twin lasers, working in tandem
all across the globe to illuminate the last dark corners of
totalitarianism and dictatorship. The ideological isms
have all died away fascism, Nazism, communism leaving
only the dregs of abused and misused power lying in their
wake.

In this refuse, dictators remain. But these are relics of
the past and the "isms" they practice can't destroy us,
can't overthrow us, can't end our way of life. They can be
dangerous and require our attention, but they can't hurtle
the Atlantic in 30 minutes and end our civilization.

Democracy and free markets work and the world knows it.
There is no finer example of this than America and her
allies, who together comprise the strongest economies in the
world.

There should be no question in any world leader's mind that
the first and most essential ingredient for economic success
is a free people - and a government that derives its right
to govern from the consent of such people.

A guiding principle of President-elect Bush's foreign policy
will be that America stands ready to help any country that
wishes to join the democratic world, any country that puts
the rule of law in place and begins to live by that rule,
any country that seeks peace and prosperity and a place in
the sun. In that light, there is no country on earth that
is not touched by America for we have become the motive
force for freedom and democracy.

And there is no country in the world that does not touch us.
We are a country of countries, with a citizen in our ranks
from every land. We are attached by a thousand cords to the
world at large - to its teeming cities, to its remotest
regions, to its oldest civilizations, to its newest cries
for freedom.

This means that we have an interest in every place on this
earth, that we need to lead, to guide, to help in every
country that has a desire to be free, open, and prosperous.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a time of great opportunity for
us. We have the strength to take risks for peace. We must
help the world that wants to be free.

And we can take risks because we have an insurance policy in
force - the Armed Forces of the United States, the finest in
the world. And they will remain the finest in the world,
with the best people, the best equipment, and the best
training.

The Armed Forces are just one member of our national
security team. There are many others. And if you confirm
me, I will become the leader of one of the most vital
members.

It is the State Department and its talented and dedicated
professionals who are in the forefront of our engagement
with the world. While the world has been growing more
complex and demanding, we have cut the number of people in
the State Department, we have underfunded our facilities
accounts, we have neglected our infrastructure. We need to
do better.

Some of you may have visited Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo where
our GIs are stationed. It is a superb, first-class
facility, put in almost overnight to make sure our troops
were taken care of. But if you visited some of the
dilapidated embassies and other State Department facilities
in the region you would wonder whether the same government
was taking care of them.

We have exceptional people in the State Department, many of
whom I've met personally over my years of public service or
over the last few weeks of transition.

And if we want them to do the people's work, we must give
them the resources to do it. In that regard, I want to
thank you for what you gave the Department for this fiscal
year.

But I will be coming back to you because I know that we do
not have enough to accomplish the mission that is before us.

As soon as I have put together the specific programs, and
the dollar details to support those programs, I'll be back.
Put it on your calendars: If you approve my appointment and
the full Senate approves it, I'll be back. That's a
promise.

Now you expect to hear how the Bush team views some of the
key issues in world affairs, so let me turn to that.

In what President-elect Bush has called "a distinctly
American internationalism", there is no inclination
whatsoever to have our nation withdraw from the world into a
fortress of protectionism or an island of isolation. As
President-elect Bush has also said, "America must be
involved in the world."

And we must be involved according to our national interests
and not in some haphazard way that seems more dictated by
the crisis du jour than by serious, thoughtful foreign
policy.

That said, as you well know, there has been a remarkable
continuity in our world outlook over the years, no matter
what political party was in power or who occupied the White
House. It is one of the great strengths of our system.

From the early days of our young republic when Secretary of
State John Quincy Adams protested that we would not be a
cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war, to the days
of the great trans-Atlantic Alliance that under our
leadership has proven the strongest in world history,
America has dealt with the world in an admirably consistent
way.

We propose no change in that regard. You will note much
that is traditional and consistent in my presentation.

There is one such tradition in foreign policy that we will
adhere to closely -- we will always be very, very clear
about things we believe in strongly.

No ally, friend, or enemy will ever be unclear about where
we stand on a matter that touches our heart and soul and our
basic interests.

For example, we believe strongly in NATO. It is the bedrock
of our relationship with Europe. It is sacrosanct. Weaken
NATO and you weaken Europe, which weakens America. The
value of NATO can be seen by the fact that ten years after
the Cold War, nations are still seeking to join the
Alliance. The Alliance is as relevant for the future as it
was in the past. It did not threaten Russia in the past and
will not in the future.

Historic change is occurring in Europe, as the recent summit
in Nice indicated. Europeans are striving in their own way
and in their own time for their own "more perfect union."
This striving includes foreign policy and defense needs. We
welcome a more integrated, robust, and a stronger Europe --
an all the more capable partner in the challenging times
ahead.

Our European allies are in the midst of important efforts to
improve their defense capabilities. We will support any
such effort as long as it strengthens NATO, not weakens it.

What happens within that great Alliance and what happens to
it, must comport with its continued strength, resilience,
and effectiveness. We will oppose any move that does not.

To our west, a similar bedrock exists. It is our strong
relationships with our Asia-Pacific allies and friends,
particularly Japan. Weaken those relationships and we
weaken ourselves. All else in the Pacific and East Asia
flows from those strong relationships.

With these fundamentals in mind, as we look to the Pacific
we come first to China.

China is a giant a giant trying to find its way in the
world, with a communist leadership still, yet with
distinctly Chinese textures that belie any real
categorization other than capitalism now weaves a strong
strain throughout.

Our challenge with China is to do what we can that is
constructive, that is helpful, and that is in our interests.
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and our other allies and
friends in the region have a stake in this process of
nurturing a constructive relationship and we will want to
work with them in responding to a dynamic China.

With full membership in the World Trade Organization, with
increasingly responsible behavior in the region and in the
world, and most vitally with increased freedom for the
Chinese people, China may yet fulfill the promise that Sun
Yat-sen began almost a hundred years ago.

But in the meantime, we will treat China as she merits.

A strategic partner China is not. But neither is China our
inevitable and implacable foe. China is a competitor and a
potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing
to cooperate in the areas - such as Korea - where our
strategic interests overlap. China is all of these things;
but China is not an enemy and our challenge is to keep it
that way.

The US has long acknowledged the view that there is only one
China. In that respect, Taiwan is part of China. How the
PRC and Taiwan resolve the differences in interpretation of
that view is up to them so long as military force is not
one of the methods used.

In the meantime, we will stand by Taiwan and we will provide
for its defense needs in accordance with our Taiwan
Relations Act, which is the foundation for our commitment to
that hard-working and prosperous democracy. Let all who
doubt, from whatever perspective, be assured of one solid
truth: We expect and demand a peaceful settlement, one
acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
This is one of the fundamentals that we feel strongly about
and that all should be absolutely clear about.

Likewise, when we look out across the Atlantic, we find
another giant trying to find its future.

Our challenge in this direction is to help the Russian
people come to grips with their future - solidifying their
democracy, restructuring their economy to support that
democracy, joining the wider world in every respect, and
moving positively and swiftly toward lower levels of nuclear
weapons, greater stability on their periphery, and a firmer,
more permanent peace for themselves and for the people of
the region.

Our relations with Russia must not be dictated by any fear
on our part. If we believe that the enlargement of NATO
should continue, for example and we do we should not
fear that Russia will object.

Instead we should deal with Russia's objections and find a
way to address them. NATO is not aimed at Russia; NATO is
aimed at the peace of Europe. And Russia is European too,
after all.

And Russia is also Asian and, as we might expect of a
country of eleven time zones and with enough strategic depth
and courage to stop both Napoleon and Hitler, Russian
influence goes both ways, east and west.

So Russia is a country that can gain enormous benefits from
its relationship with us and with the West in general. But
that relationship can only be a strong and successful one if
Russia does what it needs to do.

And what it needs to do, as President-elect Bush has said,
is to get on with reform - in particular by firmly
establishing the rule of law, rooting out corruption,
stopping proliferation of missile technology and nuclear
materials, ending sales of destabilizing conventional
weapons to nations such as Iran and, in general, living up
to the obligations it has incurred as the newest democracy
with world power credentials.

One such obligation can be found in Chechnya, where the
Russians have much to accomplish. Above all, they must
achieve a political settlement, the only way to end the
conflict and bring peace to the area. At the same time,
they must observe internationally recognized norms, such as
those of the Geneva Conventions, they must meet their
commitments to the UN and to the OSCE, and they must allow
humanitarian assistance organizations to have access to
civilians.

And we are prepared to do our utmost to help Russia in all
its efforts to become a responsible member of the world
community as, for example, we have in the OSCE with
respect to Chechnya.

In the end, the world may see the enigma inside the riddle
wrapped up in the mystery that is Russia, deciphered,
solved, and unwrapped. But the magician who does that can't
be us, or anyone else in the world. It can only be the
Russian people.

Looking back to the Pacific, we come to our bilateral
relationship with the Republic of Korea, a land seeking a
historic reconciliation, one that we support and will help
facilitate.

But so long as the dictator in the north continues to field
far more conventional military force than any conceivable
sense of self defense would warrant, and develops missiles
and unconventional weapons, we and our allies in the Pacific
will remain vigilant.

In conjunction with Secretary-designate Rumsfeld, we will
review thoroughly our relationship with the North Koreans,
measuring our response by the only criterion that is
meaningful - continued peace and prosperity in the South and
in the region.

We believe that the reduction of tensions between the North
and South is one of the keys to greater peace and stability
on the Korean Peninsula. The ongoing North-South dialogue
is certainly a positive step in this regard.

Secretary Albright has made me aware of the status of
discussions with the North Koreans. So we are mindful of
all the work that has been done and will use it as we review
our overall policy on the Peninsula. In the meantime, we
will abide by our commitments under the Agreed Framework
provided that North Korea does the same.

We are open to a continued process of engagement with the
North so long as it addresses political, economic, and
security concerns, is reciprocal, and does not come at the
expense of our alliance relationships.

And in our review of the situation on the Peninsula, the
Bush administration will be looking closely at our defense
posture.

As you know, once confirmed, Secretary Rumsfeld will be
conducting the comprehensive review of our military called
for by the President-elect. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld
shares my view that our defense posture must match our east-
west obligations. We must have sufficient military might
for the Atlantic, mainly in NATO, and for the Pacific,
largely in Korea and Japan. And our defense capabilities
must also provide for deterrence and force projection in the
Persian Gulf.

Our 37,000 GIs on the Korean Peninsula, along with their
well-trained and well-motivated Korean counterparts, are a
clear signal of our resolve and interest in the Pacific, as
are our Japan-based soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

Our troops in Europe, and our strong allied forces, afford
the same clear and definite interest in that direction.

As Secretary-designate Rumsfeld studies our defense needs in
this new century, I know this important bi-directional
requirement will be uppermost in his considerations.

I support the need for forces to provide presence in these
regions and to be able to deter and fight regional conflicts
which might occur near-simultaneously.

Of course, the United States can't do it all alone we need
our allies and friends to help us with the security
challenges of the new century. Looking to the South
Pacific, we know that Australia, our firm ally in Asia and
the Pacific, has a keen interest in what is happening in the
region, particularly in Indonesia. So we will coordinate
our policies and our actions in this important area with our
long-time Australian friends.

Indonesia, as you well know, is a state that stretches from
east to west as far as New York is from San Francisco. And
this nation is undergoing enormous change.

Our relations with this hugely important country need
careful attention. President Wahid is attempting to undo
years of neglect while at the same time hold together a
fractious population a population much affected by that
flow of ideas I mentioned earlier.

Turning again to the Atlantic, President-elect Bush has
promised to look closely at our commitments in the Balkans,
with the hope of reducing our troop levels there over time
and in consultation with our allies.

This will be part of a much more comprehensive review of all
of our commitments, not simply those in Bosnia and Kosovo.

We must always be mindful of the uniqueness of America's
armed forces. We possess the only military in the world
that can go anywhere, any time, support ourselves over the
long haul, and do it all in an overwhelming and decisive
manner if need be. Tying down such forces is often
imprudent. We need to consider these points whenever we
feel the need to use our armed forces for peace operations
that promise long or undetermined duration.

We must consider also that when we deploy our military,
whether for peace operations or potential conflict, they are
vulnerable to more than simply conventional weapons.

While such weapons constitute the primary threat to our men
and women in uniform, our GIs are also vulnerable to weapons
of mass destruction delivered by missiles, as are the
militaries and civilian populations of our allies and our
friends.

Theater Missile Defense is therefore an important
requirement for our forces. Working with Secretary-
designate Rumsfeld, we will review where our technology is
today for TMD and also for National Missile Defense.

As you are aware, President-elect Bush has made it quite
clear that he is committed to deploying an effective missile
defense using the best technology at the earliest possible
date. We will be developing a plan for the way ahead
including looking at the diplomatic ramifications.

I believe it is important that we look at missile defense
within the context of our entire strategic framework.

This framework includes offensive nuclear weapons, our
command and control systems, our intelligence systems, arms
control including our non-proliferation efforts, and missile
defense.

No one thinking soundly, logically, would construct a
strategic framework with offense only. Not the New York
Giants and not America.

If we can put together a complete framework, one that
includes all the strategic dimensions, including defense, we
will be that much better off in our relations with both
friend and foe.

I still remember the original purpose of such a defense
that is to start diminishing the value of offensive weapons.
That's important if we are serious and we are in our
efforts to make the world a safer place with fewer nuclear
weapons and with the ones that remain having less currency.

There is no question that today we still need the offensive
component of our strategic architecture because, in my mind,
the greatest deterrent right now is the clear fact that we
have the capability to destroy any tyrant who could fire a
missile at us.

This is another area where studied ambiguity is useless.
With respect to our offensive component we still need a
president who can stand on a DMZ, gaze into enemy territory,
and let it be known without a second's hesitation that
should a missile come from that territory there is no
question as to what will happen next.

While we design this complete strategic framework and decide
these important issues on missile defense, there will be
time to consult with our allies and friends to solicit their
views and to ensure their understanding of what we are doing
and, in some cases, their participation. We will also
discuss this issue with the Russians and the Chinese, as we
continue to operate on the arms control front as well.

In that context, the ABM Treaty in its current form is no
longer relevant to our new strategic framework. We hope to
persuade the Russians of the need to move beyond it.

Important in this regard also is to reduce further the
number of excess nuclear weapons in the offensive part of
the framework. There are still too many in ours and in
Russia's stockpiles.

And in Russia there are still thousands of nuclear weapons
that may not be secure. This challenge was addressed in
1991 by you, Senator Lugar, and by your fellow Senator then,
Senator Nunn of Georgia. Under the resulting program,
security at many Russian nuclear facilities has been
improved and warheads have been destroyed.

But a great deal of Russian nuclear material cannot be
accounted for. We need an accurate inventory of all this
material. And we need to increase and reinforce our efforts
to dismantle as many of Russia's weapons as possible, as
quickly as possible.

I am confident that we can continue to count on strong
congressional support for these efforts, as has been the
case in the past.

We also need to review our approach to curbing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which will
have a high priority in the Bush administration.

In that regard, the President-elect does not plan to ask the
Senate to take up again for ratification the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. At the same time, he has said that we will
not resume testing as there is no need to do so for the
foreseeable future.

I have reviewed the report by President Clinton's special
advisor and my colleague General Shalikashvili, and we will
be reviewing the recommendations he makes, especially those
relating to the Stockpile Stewardship Program.

Our primary emphasis in our efforts to curb proliferation,
however, will remain twofold: to constrict the supply of
nuclear materials and the means to deliver them and to
discourage other countries from believing any gains will
accrue from possession of such weapons. These two
fundamentals will be at the heart of our non-proliferation
policy.

Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to the Middle East where, as
you know, we have a major challenge to the peace process. I
applaud the commitment of our past presidents in their
tireless efforts to help find a resolution to this half-
century-old conflict with its roots in antiquity.
President-elect Bush shares this goal.

We seek a lasting peace based on unshakable support for the
security of Israel, the legitimate aspirations of the
Palestinian people, our friendships in the Arab world, and a
hard-headed recognition that the parties themselves must
make the peace. We deplore the increased violence in the
area and encourage the parties to do all possible to bring
it to an end. You can't successfully pursue peace in the
midst of such violence.

We also pledge to focus our own efforts on the region as a
whole and not just on the peace process itself. We are
ready to work with all the parties in the region to achieve
a comprehensive solution.

Peace for Israel means peace with all her neighbors, Syria
included, where we need to build on the opportunity created
by Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.

And as we look at the entire region, Mr. Chairman, there is
no more tragic case than Iraq, a failed state with a failed
leader. It is sad to consider what it could be, what it
should be, if only it used its vast resources and its
talented people for constructive purposes.

But instead of seeking peace and prosperity for its people,
a weakened Iraq utters threats and pursues horrible weapons
to terrorize its neighbors.

We have seen what Iraq did to Teheran; we have seen what it
did to Kuwait City, especially to the children of that city.
We must not forget how Iraq treated those innocent children.
We saw some of the effects on our television screens. We
saw the aftermath when the Marines moved into the city after
Desert Storm.

The President-elect has made it clear that we will work with
our allies to re-energize the sanctions regime.

Critics will say that tightened sanctions mean more harm to
the people of Iraq, especially the children.

No one cares for children more than I do. And I understand
that a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon in the hands
of Saddam Hussein threatens the children of not only Iraq
but the entire region far more than tightened sanctions
whose ultimate goal it is to prevent such a weapon.

The problem in Iraq is not with tightened sanctions. From
its inception, the sanctions regime has included means by
which Iraq could import whatever food and humanitarian
assistance it required. The problem, Mr. Chairman, lies
with a leader that continues to deny his people the basic
necessities of life in a cynical attempt to manipulate
public opinion both inside Iraq and in the wider world.

We need to be vigilant, ready to respond to provocations,
and utterly steadfast in our policy toward Saddam Hussein,
and we need to be supportive of opposition efforts.

The burden should be on Iraq to prove to the region, to the
UN, and to its neighbors, and to its neighbors' children
that they are no longer threatened, that Iraq is ready to
live in the world and not apart from it. Until Iraq makes
that decision and lives by it, we will remain resolute.

America has no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We look
forward to the day when that country rejoins the family of
nations and resumes normal diplomatic and commercial
relations with us and with the rest of the world.

On the other side of the Persian Gulf, Iran is a different
case - an important country undergoing profound change from
within. We have important differences on matters of policy.
But these differences need not preclude greater interaction,
whether in more normal commerce or increased dialogue. Our
national security team will be reviewing such possibilities.

Mr. Chairman, as we continue to look at our responsibilities
across the Atlantic, we need to maintain our outreach to
Africa - and with more substance.

In March of 1999 when I was in Nigeria to help President
Carter supervise the national elections, I was impressed
with the newly-elected president's courage and with his
commitment to bringing democracy to his troubled country a
country with enormous potential. President Obasanjo is now
confronting the pressures of massive indebtedness, ethnic
division, and the twin legacies of colonialism and military
misrule. He will need help to consolidate his gains - help
that comes most vitally in the form of debt relief,
investment and trade, and full support for the democracy he
is trying to create.

One of the most important actions the Congress undertook
this past year was the passage of the African Growth and
Opportunity Act. Free trade is important the world over,
but different regions require different formulas for
fostering free trade. This Act is the right way to begin to
bring Africa into the more prosperous world of free-flowing
capital and open markets.

Open trade is an enormous force, as you know Mr. Chairman.
It powers more than just economic reform and growth; it
creates better relations between nations. We prefer that
the WTO lead the way in such matters but we are interested
also in initiatives that expand trade at the bilateral and
regional levels. Valuable in themselves, such initiatives
also create way stations on the road to a new global accord.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act is such a stepping
stone. With powerful economies such as South Africa's, and
eventually Nigeria's and other transforming African states,
we can begin to change the lives of Africa's poorest
peoples.

We know also that Africans must do more for themselves. In
Nigeria, this means full speed ahead with privatization and
opening further the Nigerian economy. In Sierra Leone,
Liberia, Angola, the Congo, and elsewhere, this means
stopping the killing, taking the weapons out of the hands of
children, ending corruption, seeking compromises, and
beginning to work in peace and dialogue rather than war and
killing. It means giving the profits from oil and diamonds
and other precious resources to schools and hospitals and
decent roads instead of to bombs, bullets, and feuding
warlords.

Returning to our own side of the Atlantic, here in the
Western Hemisphere, there are 500 million people with whom
we share some borders, most economic values and, with the
exception of the relic in Cuba, a pervasive belief that
people who are free and governed democratically are people
who will keep the peace and create and sustain a prosperity
that will benefit us all.

President-elect Bush is especially alert to this region. As
a governor, he dealt frequently with Mexico, a neighbor
whose recent elections proved once again the sweeping power
of the changes occurring in our world as you recently
recognized, Mr. Chairman, along with several other committee
members, in your sponsorship of Senate Resolution 335
congratulating the people of Mexico.

We must never neglect our own neighborhood. We must help
solidify democracy's hold, open markets even further, and
encourage at every opportunity the kind of economic policies
that support and bolster the greater freedom of the region's
peoples. In this regard, NAFTA was a great step forward and
a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with Chile will continue
that progress.

As a goal, President-elect Bush wants free trade agreements
with all the countries of Latin America. We are well aware
that the one-size-fits-all approach is not always the
answer, but the ultimate goal is free trade from the Yukon
to Cape Horn.

We have come a long way from the days of gangsters in
Panama, communists in Nicaragua, and insurrections in El
Salvador and Guatemala. We must stay on that road to
progress. Making prosperous economies based on solid
democracies is the best way to do that. And also helping
where we can with humanitarian assistance, as is happening
right now with Army medical troops and engineers from our
units in Honduras in response to the tragic earthquake in El
Salvador.

With respect to bolstering democracy, we are especially
interested in Plan Colombia.

As you may be aware, President-elect Bush has met with
President Pastrana. Their visit was a good one and the
president-elect came away with a solid impression of his
dedication and earnestness on two key issues: fighting the
scourge of illicit drugs and ending the insurgency that
threatens Colombia's democracy.

We support the actions by the Congress and President to send
aid to Colombia. We believe that this money, some 1.3
billion dollars from America, should be used to help the
Colombian government to protect its people, fight the
illicit drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerrillas, and
ultimately to bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution
to the conflict that has ravaged Colombia for so long now.

There is another country, Mr. Chairman, that I want to
mention before I leave this regional perspective, a country
that should grow more and more focused in the lens of our
foreign policy. That country is India.

We must deal more wisely with the world's largest democracy.
Soon to be the most populous country in the world, India has
the potential to help keep the peace in the vast Indian
Ocean area and its periphery. We need to work harder and
more consistently to assist India in this endeavor, while
not neglecting our friends in Pakistan.

As you know, this is a delicate process in the midst of what
by any accurate account would be labeled an arms race
between these two countries. Recently, however, there have
been encouraging signs, including India's extended
moratorium on operations in Kashmir and Pakistan's restraint
along the Line of Control.

Mr. Chairman, as I talk about these regions of the world I
must mention the increasingly important and dramatically
larger role played today by non-governmental organizations.

As all of you are aware, NGOs have been around a long time.
And over that time they have done much good work. I think
about World Vision's programs in Africa and I remember some
of my adopted children from my time at America's Promise,
little 6th, 7th, and 8th graders from the District of
Columbia, who actually fasted for 30 hours at a church near
my home St. Thomas' Episcopal Church in McLean, Virginia.

Under careful supervision, they refrained from eating or
drinking anything substantial while they sat through classes
on the projects that World Vision was managing in several
African countries. During the course of the day and late
into the night, these children were profoundly moved by what
they saw and heard.

So moved, in fact, that they went door-to-door the next
morning and collected hundreds of dollars for World Vision's
programs in Africa.

These youngsters recognized intuitively how important World
Vision's work was to the young children and families of
these African countries.

We recognize that importance too. Today, NGOs are in every
region, laboring away at their many tasks. As
President elect Bush has remarked about the vital nature of
faith-based and voluntary private and non-profit
institutions and their role in America, so we must realize
how necessary is the work of the NGOs to our wider purposes
in the world.

The Bush administration will ensure that there is always a
place for NGOs in the developmental, humanitarian, and
peace-keeping efforts we undertake. We need their
professionalism, their focused in-country knowledge and
expertise, and their dedication to good works.

Senator Helms recognized such efforts just last week. And I
salute his willingness to put more dollars in the foreign
aid budget if we can make their dispensing more effective,
more efficient, and closer to the need. And I will be
looking to him and to other of the members to help me in the
redesign, if need be, of the organizational structure for
doing that.

Let me say here that I know that many members of the
committee are critical of the organization and management of
the State Department. I will make this a top priority of my
stewardship. We can't get the job ahead of us done unless
the State Department operates in the most efficient manner
possible. That is my responsibility. I am the leader and
chief manager of the Department, as well as the President's
principal foreign policy advisor. I will not shirk that
responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, one of President-
elect Bush's principal foreign policy goals is that America
go about its business in the world with the statesman-like
demeanor required of the world's greatest democracy.

We cannot do this well if we refuse to recognize one of the
best tools for international diplomacy that American leaders
of the past, along with other like-minded world leaders, saw
fit to create, develop, and nurture.

I mean the United Nations. In this regard, I am pleased to
see the recent agreement whereby we will now pay our dues in
accordance with a dues structure more in line with fairness,
equity, and the idea that all should pull their weight in
financing this important institution. I agree with the
assessment of Senator Helms that this agreement is "a real
leap forward."

I also support our paying as promptly as possible the
arrears that we have accumulated with the UN so that this
leap can be as far forward as we can jump.

I know that you, Senator Helms, and you, Senator Biden, as
well as other members of this committee had much to do with
bringing about this agreement. I applaud your tireless
efforts and the outcome they produced.

I believe we will find great value in the United Nations in
the future, as we have in the past. For while the future is
full of promise, it also presents new and different
challenges.

The challenge of HIV/AIDS is one of these, as is the
challenge of protecting and safeguarding the earth itself,
the only livable environment we have.

International organized crime including trafficking in
narcotics - and international terrorism are two more such
examples of these challenges that recognize no borders, no
sovereignties. Our encouragement and support of
international religious freedom is another issue that has no
frontier.

These challenges affect our lives and demand our attention.
We must recognize, for example, that global infectious
diseases such as AIDS have the potential to devastate
economies, governments, peoples, and regions. Indeed, in
much of sub-Saharan Africa that is too rapidly becoming the
situation.

In the next ten years, HIV/AIDS may kill one-quarter of
Africa's population and reduce national economies by one-
third severely straining state structures many of which
are already faltering. The increasing presence of this
terrible disease in India and Russia bodes more devastation
in the future.

No longer is such devastation simply a cause for our
sympathy, our charity, our reaching out to care for fellow
humans - although these altruistic motivations are still
vital to us as humans. Increasingly meeting such challenges
successfully, appeals to even more basic instincts - caring
for our own interests, paying attention to our own hope for
survival on this earth.

We must guard our citizens and our society against crime and
terrorism as well. Nothing defeats our honest purposes in a
more insidious way than organized crime, and international
terrorism the scourge of cowards with bombs and guns
must not be allowed to deter us from our steady course
toward a freer and more prosperous world.

Dealing with these non-traditional challenges will be as
important as dealing with the more traditional ones.

And I believe that in the future a revamped and
reinvigorated United Nations will be a principal partner in
meeting these new challenges.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the times are
exciting. You can almost feel the change in the air. You
can almost sense the transformation taking place.

There are more people living in this world today than ever
imagined possible by our forefathers and they are freer
than ever before.

The resulting mosaic is beautiful, diverse, and full of
promise. And our country is under a heavy obligation.

Our preeminence in the two unstoppable world forces of
democracy and capitalism, coupled with our unparalleled
military power and our strong passion for peace and
prosperity for ourselves and our friends and allies, places
us under this heavy obligation. It is an obligation we must
fulfill.

We must help move our transforming world toward more and
more freedom, toward increasing prosperity, toward a wider
peace -- while at the same time safeguarding and enhancing
our own.

What we do with our position of power over the next decades
will mark this earth irrevocably for good or bad.

It will do so both physically and spiritually, for our power
extends over everything from economics to the environment,
from music to the cinema, from literature to the sciences,
from genetic adaptation to human frailty and disease.

What a time this is for dedicated public service!

Were our founders alive today, they would rejoice at our
prospects. Jefferson would be astonished at the incredible
increase in our population but mostly because we are
largely in cities. Hamilton would also be astonished at our
size but would relish the revenue-gathering
possibilities.

And if Washington were here, well, he would be content. The
old warrior-statesman understood the potential America
possessed as well as any man alive at the time.

His only significant concern, I believe, would have been
what was his primary concern when he was president over 200
years ago.

Washington called it "faction."

To argue that politics stopped at the water's edge, or that
there was no partisanship or special interests in foreign
policy in his day, as some modern pundits do, would have
made him roar with laughter, followed perhaps by a
smoldering rage as he further considered that assessment
in light of his personal experience as president.

The Jeffersonian preference for the French as opposed to the
Hamiltonian preference for the British, all by themselves,
offered to Washington's eight years in the presidency as
much "faction" in foreign policy as any president could want
or learn to hate.

It would be disrespectful of our history, therefore, for me
to sit here and ask you, and by implication all of your
fellow Senators, to grant the President-elect and his
national security team a bipartisan approach to foreign
policy.

More importantly, it would be disrespectful of our method,
our proven political process whose main way of revealing
truth to power is the exquisite mechanism of checks and
balances built into its very fabric, its very essence.

What I will ask for, then, is not bipartisanship in the
conduct of America's foreign policy but dispassion and grace
characteristics so descriptive of our first president.

Let us discuss our differences without the anger and
bitterness that has sometimes characterized discussions in
the past and let us with grace and dignity agree to
disagree, if that be the case.

Above all, let us always remember the profound wisdom of our
founders that in our grace and our dispassion and our
reasonable discourse, no matter how much we may occasionally
disagree, lies the surest foundation for our well
representing the American people in the conduct of their
foreign policy.

If we do these things, I believe we can fulfill our enormous
obligation to America and to the world we lead. I believe
we can seize the historic opportunity that lies before us.

As America's official advocate the world over, the
Department of State recognizes this opportunity in all of
its dimensions. As an important member of the Bush team, we
will play our considerable part in fulfilling the
obligations of leadership. We will help President-elect
Bush and all of you make America the leader she ought to be,
must be, will be.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions and comments.
 

                                        # # #