17 September 1998
(SecState may urge veto of foreign affairs money bill) (6750) Washington -- Secretary of State Albright has urged Congress to fully fund the Clinton administration's foreign affairs program, warning that the appropriations bill now working its way through Congress "would make dramatic and unacceptable cuts" in the President's fund requests while attaching "burdensome restrictions" on their expenditure. "If this bill reaches the President's desk in its current form," Albright said during a September 17 address to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, "I will be compelled by my responsibilities as Secretary of State to recommend its veto." She noted that US spending on international affairs is down to about one percent of the Federal budget, and the 1999 request is, in real terms, $3.7 billion ($3,700 million) below the International Affairs budget submitted by the Bush administration for its final year. The Secretary again urged that the US Congress fund US contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations. "If we want a strong voice in any reforms that are made, we must maintain our influence by paying our share," Albright said. Following her speech she answered questions from the audience about the Middle East peace process, Russia, Iran and Iraq. Following is the State Department transcript: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman September 17, 1998 Text As Delivered REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE Washington, D.C. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very, very much, Jessica. It's a pleasure to be here with so many old friends and have a chance to have a good conversation. Jessica, I really want to thank you for everything that you're doing here; but also, all the work that you have done over the years in terms of both at the State Department and before and beyond. You have really, I think, been the person to put global issues into the mainstream of American foreign policy making. When we were together at the NSC -- which you will admit, right -- during the Carter Administration, you were doing global issues then when people didn't know quite what that meant. And you really have consistently put them into the mainstream, and we have tried very hard at the Department of State to make sure that happens. Carnegie is very lucky to have you, and we are very lucky to have Carnegie. I'd also like to salute my good friend, Mort Abramiwitz, the past president. He has done a great job here and, occasionally, other places. He's an old friend so I can say I don't like his criticism. You have provided, here at Carnegie, a stream of foreign policy talent to the State Department, from Steve Sestanovich and David Scheffer to standout Carnegie board members Strobe Talbott and Greg Craig. In addition to being a source of great people, Carnegie has been -- and I know will continue to be -- a rich source of ideas. I, for one, am counting on this, because the issues that Carnegie focuses on are the ones that will determine the legacy of our generation and the identity of our age. What matters most for the future of our children is not the preoccupations of the moment, but whether the broad opportunities of this era are squandered or seized. For example, will the trend towards open markets and free trade resume or grind to a halt as a result of the financial crisis? Will the worldwide movement towards democracy continue or go into reverse? Will we succeed in curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, or find ourselves confronted in the new century with catastrophes unmatched even by those of the old? And will we find a way to resolve conflicts and build a global culture of peace, or be surrounded by regional and civil wars conducted with ever-more deadly weapons at ever-greater risks to our own society? These are the questions that matter. But perhaps above all is a question related to each of the others: will the United States of America continue to lead, or will we hide our heads in the sand out of indifference, complacency or fear? Will we, in years to come, play the role of eagle, or ostrich? It is this last question that I want to discuss today. Some suggest that Americans have turned inward and are no longer willing to bear the costs and risks of leadership. I don't believe that, but I do know that we have reached a critical moment in our effort to shape the post-Cold War world. Now more than ever, we need bipartisan support in Congress and broad support from the American people. Because only with that will we succeed in our broad objective of bringing the world closer together around basic principles of democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace. That's why I want today to shine a spotlight on funding decisions that will be made on Capitol Hill between now and when Congress adjourns early next month; because those decisions will have a major impact on America's capacity to lead. And I do think that this audience that really is composed of foreign policy experts and aficionados really is the best one in order to discuss what is a very difficult subject; and that is how we get money for our programs. In the aftermath of the US Embassy bombings in Africa, we're asking for resources to improve the security of those who represent America overseas, and to strengthen our fight against terror. We're also asking Congress to reconsider its current course and to make the investments we have requested in peace, freedom, stability and human development. These are the bread and butter investments that back our leadership with substance and enable us to further our interests and promote our ideals around the globe. First, let me deal with the immediate needs we face in the aftermath of the murderous attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. We must demonstrate in concrete and unmistakable ways that America will not be intimidated by terror. We will keep our commitments and we will work with others to ensure that, sooner or later, one way or another, terrorists are held accountable for their crimes. The fight against terror is an old struggle that has entered a grim new phase with the emergence of terrorist coalitions that don't answer fully to any government, that operate across national borders and have access to advanced technology. Their goal is to cause America to abandon its friends, allies and responsibilities. Since the Beirut bombings 15 years ago, the security of our diplomatic posts has been a bipartisan priority. More than $1 billion has been spent building and upgrading facilities, but it remains a work in progress. In the past month, we have stepped up these efforts, while responding to a multitude of additional threats. By so doing, we believe we have foiled several planned attacks and thereby saved many lives. But all this requires money -- millions of dollars now, and millions more in the future. After the Africa bombings, we can no longer consider any post a low-threat one. We must build secure facilities to replace those that were destroyed. We must address elsewhere the kind of security deficiencies that made the posts in Kenya and Tanzania tempting targets. And we have an obligation to help the thousands of innocent people affected by the bombings. By so doing, we can show that terrorists will not succeed in driving a wedge between the United States and our friends and allies around the world. Within the next few days, the Administration will submit a formal request for supplemental funds to beef up our diplomatic security and finance an even stronger anti-terrorist campaign. I've been heartened by the support we have received in our preliminary discussions with Congress, and I am hopeful that our request will be acted upon promptly. I emphasize, however, that this is not a one-time, short-term problem -- unless we want to turn our embassies into prisons, from which our diplomats monitor events on CNN or to shrink dramatically the number of our overseas posts, which would make it impossible to protect our interests and leave the impression of an America in retreat. Moreover, security means more than safety from bombs and guns. It demands more than guards and concrete walls. Security requires a world in which America's vital interests are not at risk, and in which the values we cherish are widely shared. To build that kind of world, we must do more than build safer embassies. We must also do more to promote democracy, sound economic practices and respect for the rule of law. But unfortunately, for the past decade, we've been cutting foreign policy positions and slowing expenditures on international affairs -- which now constitute only about 1 percent of the Federal budget. Moreover, the foreign operations appropriations bills approved by the Senate and now being considered by the House would make dramatic and unacceptable cuts in the amounts requested by President Clinton, while attaching burdensome restrictions to the expenditure of those funds. If this bill reaches the President's desk in its current form, I will be compelled by my responsibilities as Secretary of State to recommend its veto. We have two opportunities to work together on this and to make sure our diplomacy has the resources it needs. The first is when the House votes on the bill, as early as this afternoon. The second, more realistically, is when the two houses meet to prepare a single version. The rapid progress and cooperative spirit of our efforts on the supplemental shows that we can work together, if we recognize what is at stake. And when we are talking about the success or failure of American foreign policy, the stakes are high indeed. For example, President Clinton laid out this Monday a bold outline for American leadership in confronting the international financial crisis. On this critical issue, the United States, with the world's largest economy, has a unique responsibility to lead. But we can't lead without resources; and we need money for emergency assistance, for institution-building and to pay our contributions to the International Monetary Fund, which bears the brunt of short-term support for nations at risk. And I will not argue that the IMF's response to the crisis has been perfect. But it has stood between us and deeper problems, and it has helped keep smaller economies from being destroyed. If we want countries under threat to have a source of assistance other than ourselves and if we want a strong voice in any reforms that are made, we must maintain our influence by paying our share. At a time when our business people, investors, farmers and workers are looking to Washington for leadership in calming a jittery world economy, it's, frankly, hard for me to understand why the leadership of the House of Representatives -- the people's house -- would fail to support IMF funding to the utmost. And I'm grateful for the efforts made on the Senate side, and I hope that the final version of the appropriations bill will include the President's full request. The financial crisis has left Russia facing a particularly difficult and uncertain future. Russia's economic problems are deep and complex. We can't solve them; only Russians can do that. But neither is it in our interest to declare Russia a failure and walk away. For while we do not have to worry about waking up to find the hammer and sickle waving over the Kremlin, we do have important interests in a Russia that is stable, peaceful and moving toward democracy and prosperity, not tyranny and despair. We have a vital interest in seeing that former Soviet nuclear weapons technology and expertise are controlled -- not put up for sale. We have a vital interest in supporting the efforts of the Russian people to build democratic institutions and market structures that are stable, fair and effective. We have a vital interest in helping the Russian people build institutions they can believe in, and develop forms of democracy that will help improve their lives. Russia's neighbors -- Ukraine, the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and others -- also face major problems as a result of the financial crisis. But their importance to us -- as critical elements of a secure Europe, as trading partners, and as new or potential members of the democratic community -- is undiminished. Now is not the time to signal the world that we are giving up on the region and its profound transformation. This year, our request to Congress included substantial increases in assistance programs for the New Independent States. Those programs help develop private businesses, improve nuclear safety, support civil society and address crime and corruption. Unfortunately, both versions of the appropriations bill would leave our assistance below this year's levels. And the House has proposed conditions that would withhold 50 percent or more of our assistance to Russia, Ukraine and others. Now, we need more flexibility; and I ask Congress to remove these restrictions, and to restore funding levels commensurate with the urgency we face. Next week in New York, the President will give his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly. There, before a worldwide audience, he will argue America's case in the fight against terror and for the rule of law. He will discuss the need for firmness in dealing with Saddam Hussein and urge adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is 50 years old. All this is appropriate, given America's role as the world's leading champion of freedom. What is not appropriate is that the President will be asked to go before the world once again with our nation roughly $1 billion behind in payments to the United Nations system. This debt undermines our leadership in an organization our predecessors created, and in whose work we have a broad and varied interest. The best America is a leader, not a debtor. I have asked Congress before and I urge Congress now -- before you adjourn, cast a vote for UN reform and for American leadership; cast a vote, at long last, to pay UN bills. Another test of our willingness to back our leadership with resources is in Korea, where we have pledged to contribute funds to implement the agreed framework. The House Appropriations Committee has voted to end those contributions because of concern about North Korea's recent missile launch and other actions that have raised doubts about the intentions of the government in Pyongyang. Rather than moving us toward resolution of our concerns, we think this is a formula for stalemate, and perhaps confrontation. The Clinton Administration has no illusions about North Korea. And we have let North Korea know, in no uncertain terms, the risks involved in its current course. But the agreed framework remains central to our ability to press for restraint on missiles and answers to our questions about suspicious underground construction activities. I urge Congress to keep the heat on by meeting our commitments, even as we press North Korea's leaders to meet theirs. We also risk failing to provide leadership on critical environmental and social issues. Unless Congress reverses course, we will continue to lag far behind in funding international environmental cooperation that helps preserve clean air and water for everyone, including Americans, as well as create markets for our cutting-edge green technology. And we will be unable to support family-planning programs that help stabilize population growth, reduce maternal and infant mortality and cut demand for abortions. The proposed Mexico City conditions are an assault on the free exchange of ideas that Americans cherish. And their first victims will be the women and families who look to America for help in building better futures for the children they wish to have. Let me emphasize, our overall funding requests are modest. No President, Republican or Democrat, would be seeking less. In fact, our 1999 request, in real terms, is a full $3.7 billion below the last International Affairs budget submitted by President Bush. The challenges have not lessened, and neither should our commitment to meeting them. Today, America looks to Capitol Hill for evidence that our representatives will act in the face of new threats and long-standing imperatives to reaffirm America's presence on the center stage of world affairs. I am personally confident. Over the past half-dozen years, I have seen Congress and the Executive come together to dismantle and secure thousands of weapons from the former Soviet Union, enlarge NATO, build peace in Bosnia, support the agreed framework, help our partners in the Middle East and enact numerous other measures to further our interests around the globe. Time and time again, we have stood together across party lines. That is what we must do now. As history teaches, it is then that America is the strongest. A half-century ago, our nation was in the midst of a bitterly partisan election campaign as candidates fought for the levers of political power. But in that same testing year of 1948, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress approved the Marshall Plan, laid the groundwork for NATO, established the Voice of America, recognized the infant state of Israel, airlifted life-sustaining aid to a blockaded Berlin and helped an embattled Turkey and Greece remain on freedom's side of the Iron Curtain. There are those who say that Americans have changed and that we are now too inward-looking and complacent to shoulder comparable burdens. But by standing tall, and backing our leadership with resources, we have the opportunity to prove the cynics wrong. American foreign policy is not the province of a particular party, ideology or point of view. It finds its strength not in its brilliance of theory, but in the steadfast qualities of the American people -- whose interests it defends and whose values it reflects. Through this century, we have survived and prevailed against aggression, Depression, fascism and the totalitarian threat. Now, we face new dangers and uncertainties. But we have not lost our confidence, nor have we grown weary. For our country, there are no final frontiers. We are doers. Whatever threats the future may hold, we will meet them. With the memory alive in our hearts of past sacrifice, we will defend our freedom, meet our responsibilities and live up to our principles. To those ends, this afternoon, I pledge my own best efforts, and I respectfully solicit your wise counsel and support. Thank you very much. Q: Madame Secretary, my question is on US policy towards the Middle East. I know that Mr. Ross is in the Middle East, yet we still have no news of a breakthrough. The May '99 deadline is approaching. We have yet to declare positions - even an American position - (inaudible) - not moving forward. Is there a time table; is there a plan for the United States, as we get closer to May 1999? If an agreement is not in place what are we going to do? ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say that we are very hopeful that we will be able to move towards an agreement and there is a time table that has been in place, and that is the time table that we will endeavor to pursue. As you said, Ambassador Ross is in the region, and he has made some progress. Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat will be in New York, and they have asked to see me; and I will be seeing them. We still have to decide on a format and venue. I just have to say that this is a subject that I work on every day and the President has been deeply involved in. I think we all believe - especially the President and I - that we need to move this phase of it to a conclusion. It has been long and not easy; gaps, differences have existed between the parties. But I believe that we're making steady progress. Q: Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask you about a resource question that is not exactly under your purview, but which is nevertheless important. You've been a very strong champion of vigorous American leadership around the world, including a very strong military proponent when necessary. If we all remember your strong comment to Colin Powell - (inaudible) - force. I'd like to ask you whether you have any concern that our current defense budget may be inadequate to sustain the kinds of policies you have been championing in the Administration. ALBRIGHT: Let me say that I have been one, as you pointed out, who has really believed about the complementarity of diplomacy and the use of force -- obviously, a subject that has been a concern to former Secretaries of State and will be to future ones. And I think that, especially in the post-Cold War environment, there have been many questions about what is the right time to use force and at what level. And I have believed, as I've said, that when we are able to threaten the use of force -- which does mean that you have to be prepared to use it -- that we have strengthened our diplomacy. I also do think that it is absolutely essential that the defense budget be one that is reflective of the multiple needs that are now evident. And the needs are really quite different than the ones that were there before, and I can't think of anything worse than not having enough readiness. I've been concerned about the op tempo for our armed forces and generally about operations and maintenance and the ability to develop new systems. So, yes, I support - the CINCs have been meeting with the President, and Secretary Cohen and I have been talking about the Defense Department needs and we support them. I hope that if he should come here, you might ask him whether he supports our budget. Q: My question is about Kosovo. Madame Secretary, you said that the US and the West would not allow Kosovo to become another Bosnia. How would you describe the situation in Kosovo today? It seems to deteriorate each and every day. And how would you describe the response of the West and the United States in dealing with Kosovo? ALBRIGHT: First of all, I do feel very strongly about the fact that we need to absorb the lessons that we learned from Bosnia. But I think we also need to be very clear about the fact that Kosovo and Bosnia are quite different in terms of how they relate to the state structure in the area. This is not an audience that I need to elaborate on, but there is a difference. We have been following a three-track approach. We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation. I was briefed again this morning by Julia Taft on this, and we do believe that there is a huge danger of a major humanitarian disaster beginning sometime in the middle of October as the weather deteriorates. And we are working now -- one track is on the humanitarian track -- to try to preposition food and other kinds of humanitarian assistance; not to put people into population areas that could then become safe havens in the bad lesson that we learned on that from Bosnia. So we are going to be working with various NGOs that are already on the ground to try to make sure that we can get as much assistance in there as possible. We then have our diplomatic negotiating track, and both parties have agreed to begin negotiations on an interim accord. There has been, I thought, when we got agreement to that, that it was a procedural step forward. Ambassador Hill is now working on trying to have proximity talks and a variety of ways that we could move that forward. Finally, we have made clear that the military - that all options are on the table. NATO has completed its planning. I think that we will be following the situation very closely, making clear that that option is on the table. And I am sure that everybody agrees that ultimately the only and best solution is a diplomatic one. We are focused on this, again, very sharply to try to get some resolution to it. It's obviously very complicated, especially with the additional problems now in Albania and the relationship of the Kosovar Albanians to Tirana. Q: Madame Secretary, my question is - (inaudible). When President Clinton - (inaudible) -- ALBRIGHT: Well, again, I think that clearly the situation in the Congo had deteriorated. We have been trying to work with the countries in the region to get some resolution to this. When I was there and also when the President was in the region, we spoke about the need for judicial reform for the fact that the international community had to complete its investigations of what was going on. We have pressed very hard through whether it's the regional powers or through the United Nations or the OAU to try to get some accountability for what is happening in the Congo. It is not an easy situation, as you know. Having various of the neighboring countries involved in one side or another, I think, has created the potential of a very difficult regional situation. All I can tell you is that we're very much aware of it and are pushing to shine the light on it. But there is no immediate solution to it. Q: I want to ask you about Russia. (Inaudible) -- the case. (Inaudible) -- Kiriyenko Government and the Chernomyrdin government, and that message -- (inaudible) -- was ignored. My question to you is given the appointments that have been made recently and given the much more -- (inaudible) -- what is the message -- (inaudible) -- ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I do claim fairly good knowledge of Yevgeniy, having talked to him at great length, sung with him and spent many, many hours on the phone. My message, and America's message as well as the G-7/8 message, is that we can help but they have to make their own decisions; and that ultimately the economic situation is such that they need to understand -- and the President made that very clear while he was there -- that there is no way for them to insulate themselves from the world markets. I think as we look at what's going on in Russia, we have to see the positive as well as the problems. Despite the fact that this is going on, in terms of democracy what is happening is happening constitutionally. I think that is something that cannot be underrated. It is something that people now kind of take for granted. But those of us who spent a lot of time studying the previous system, I think understand the importance of that development. Primakov and I have really, I think, what characterizes our relationship -- and it started out in our first meeting -- is he actually was very funny. He said, since you know what I did before, you know that I know everything about you. So that was kind of a good way to begin. I said, actually, I spent a lot of time studying about you -- not quite in the same detail or with the same capability. But we both decided then and there that our best approach was that we recognized each other as tough fighters on behalf of our own national interests. We didn't agree often, but we did agree on many things; because I think that he knew -- and he still knows -- that Russia needs an effective non-proliferation regime, that Russia needs strategic arms reduction, that Russia needs an adapted CFE treaty, that Russia needs good relations with its neighbors and that Russia needs a Europe without dividing lines. Those are just some initial things that we agree on. I think that on foreign policy, we have talked about the fact that things will continue as they are. We will agree where we can and maintain our solid defense of our own national interests; and where we can agree, that will be positive. We are very, very concerned about the economic situation. The international community is prepared to help; but not if the Russians don't make the tough decisions themselves. We have indicated to them that some of the policies that might be forthcoming from -- we have not gotten involved in names, that's not our business -- but that basically it would be a mistake if that long-running debate that goes back decades about whether Russia should turn inward or outward, at the end of the century if the vote is to turn inward, they have put themselves in an impossible position; because even a country as powerful and as self-sufficient as the United States cannot operate outside of the world economy. And our message to them is -- they don't have a government and therefore, they don't have an economic plan yet. So it's hard for us to react to it. But the message to them is, you can't go backward; and we will help you if you can figure out how to get yourself into place. Q: Madame Secretary, I'd like to ask you about Iran. You gave a really remarkable speech at the Asia Society some time ago; and I guess you're going to get your answer when the Foreign Minister of Iran speaks there on the 25th of this month. I guess there's a chance for a meeting in the UN early next week. But with the threat from Afghanistan and the problem of bin Laden and the leakage of the forces there around the neighborhood, I'm wondering if there's any thinking about partially lifting the US unilateral sanctions on Iran to make it possible for the Iranian hard-liners to give permission for the moderates to move toward a dialogue, which, it seems to me, is very much in our interest at this moment. This could help us with Iraq, as well. ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say thank you for your kind words about my speech. I think that in that speech what I tried to do was to lay out the terms for a road map for normalizing relations and a desire - we had said that we were prepared for government-to-government dialogue; that is on the table. But I think that I will be listening with great interest to the Foreign Minister's speech. I find very interesting that he chose the same place I did. My speech - it's the one that I think if you really did content analysis on, that I worked the hardest on; because it was mirroring - it was really responding to the things that Khatemi had said. So we are in a very interesting kind of non-official way of listening or talking and listening. So I am very eager to hear what he has to say. We got news a little while before I got here that they have, in fact, decided that they will attend that conference -- the UN session that we have to talk about Afghanistan. I think that what you're asking for is premature. We obviously are concerned about what is going on between them -- between the Taliban and Iran. But I think we also have laid out what we see as actions that are necessary for them to walk down this road that we have laid out. So I'm going to be listening and really looking to see if there are any actions. But we've had some interesting sports exchanges and I think some of you have been. And I think the people-to-people part is very important. It's a very interesting kind of back-and-forth that's going on. Q: Madame Secretary, my question is about Iraq. Since Scott Ritter resigned there's been a lot of controversy in the press to what really went on between Iraq's inspections. My question to you is, could you tell us and clarify on what went on; whether or not these actions - you said the timing was not right? If so, why not; and what were your approaches - (inaudible) -- ALBRIGHT: Yes. Well, let me say that our policy towards Iraq has actually been, I think, the most sustained and consistent policy that any Administration has had on an issue. For seven years we have been the ones that have been the strongest defenders of the Security Council resolutions and the ones that have insisted that Iraq live up to the Security Council resolutions. We have been great supporters of UNSCOM. We have believed in the ability of UNSCOM to act as the eyes and ears of the world as it tries to determine whether Saddam Hussein is living up to the Security Council resolutions. The train of events here is that, as you know, we had a crisis in the fall where Saddam Hussein was throwing out UNSCOM -- first American inspectors and then UNSCOM -- because he saw a disunity in the Security Council. There's been no question that the toll of having a sanctions regime for this long is that there is a fraying, and that we don't all have exactly the same approach. I think that we felt that it was unfortunate that there was a division in the Security Council. We have systematically worked to bring the Security Council back together in support of the sanctions regime, because we believe that it's very important to maintain it until Saddam Hussein lives up to his obligations. We believed that -- and this goes actually back to the question that Bob Hagen asked, how do we use our forces in the most effective way? We felt that we should not, every time Saddam Hussein has a tantrum that we are on his schedule. What we think is that he needs to live up to his obligations; we need to respond at a time and place of our choosing, making very clear that all options remain on the table. And specifically on the issue that you asked, at a time that Saddam Hussein was flat out refusing to live up to the memorandum of understanding that he had signed with Kofi Annan and that then had been validated by the Security Council and Richard Butler had just gone out there laying out a work plan - and he said no way. Since our policy here was to try to get the Council united again behind its own decisions, there was such a clear-cut reason to shine the spotlight on the decision Saddam Hussein had made and not on whether a particular inspection would go forward, that we felt -- and we all had conversations with Richard Butler; I've had scores of them and so has every other member of the Security Council. That's what his job is, is to consult with members of the Security Council. I think that he felt, after some discussion with a number of us, that it was better to leave it a very clear case of Saddam Hussein not living up to the memorandum of understanding rather than muddying the waters with an inspection at that time, of which there was some question about whether this was the right - it was a matter of delaying the inspection. I would just like to say that we continue to believe that UNSCOM is a great operation. The inspectors have been terrific; Scott Ritter himself has been a great inspector. It's a matter of tactics of trying to figure out how you maintain the toughest sanctions regime in the history with a united Council. And it turns out that our approach was right; because last week, again, the Security Council voted unanimously -- no abstentions, unanimously -- to suspend sanctions reviews until Saddam Hussein comes back in compliance. So while there were those who questioned what we were doing at the time, I think that our approach has been completely validated by the recent Security Council coming back together again. Q: Madame Secretary, your staff says you have to be elsewhere, but before we let you go, I'd like to ask you one last question on the subject of your speech. When the Cold War ended there was a good deal of talk and a lot of reason to think that the US might return to one of its periodic bouts of isolationism. And we had a large and apparently intractable budget deficit. Today we hear very little talk of isolationism. I guess Americans have recognized that with the best will in the world, today's world doesn't allow us to turn inside. And the deficit has turned into a large and growing surplus. You've spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill in the last couple of years, and you've been a student of Congress for many years before that. How do you explain Congress' unwillingness to provide the resources that are necessary for American leadership in light of its professed interest in American leadership? What is the underlying thinking that's going on? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's very hard for me to explain Congress' thinking at this moment. And I think that what has happened here -- and if I were still teaching, I did teach about executive-legislative relations and followed the history of how often Congress intervened in micromanaging foreign policy. There are a few people here who actually did that when the shoe was on the other foot. But I think that what is happening now is there are two things where there are a lot of people who would like my job in Congress, and who really, I think, feel that micromanagement is one thing through a whole set of restrictions; and the other is by consistently cutting down the amount of money that we have with which to operate. I think it is viewed primarily as a way of more balances than checks, and that -- I am concerned about the fact that it is such a small amount and that people are not willing -- it's described -- you would think that it was half the federal budget, when it's less than 1 percent. It surpasses my understanding as to why this is happening. What troubles me the most -- and that's why I have focused so much on the need for a bipartisan foreign policy -- is that some of the issues, whether they are restrictions or whether they are lack of funding in a particular area, are really as a result of a particular point of view which either may be partisan or ideological, which is something we don't need at this point. (Break in transcription) ... is that we don't have the ability to have a discussion about this in Congress. For whatever reason, we are not able to really have a sustained discussion; because I do not think that the American people are isolationist. And all the polling data indicate that they are not, and that the farmer in Iowa is an internationalist; that doctors understand that they can benefit by getting instruments from other countries -- any number of -- whatever average American you talk to, that average American seems to understand that his or her life is intimately intertwined with how we're doing internationally. So it beats me, Jessica. That's why I find this frustrating; because to me it is so logical that a country that has everything that we have and whose power and leadership is wanted in the world does not, at this critical moment, have a budget in order to do our work. You can't lead with no money. You can't do it. So that's why this has been so important. I so much appreciate having the opportunity to make the case with this audience that actually knows the case. But I think it's very important that, in as calm a way as possible, one describes and discusses the need for a bipartisan foreign policy. I pledge myself -- something I never -- I was known as being pretty partisan. But once I became Secretary of State, I had all my partisan instincts surgically removed. They are not the kind that kind of grow back. I can assure you that when I am finished with this position, I am not going to engage in partisan rhetoric, because it is absolutely essential that we have a bipartisan foreign policy. Thank you. (end transcript)