 One of the important themes that was raised this morning, but not explored in any detail, was the relationship between the Congress. I believe it was Brent Scowcroft who suggested that's a situation that if it ain't broke, at least it's a troubled and a very delicate relationship. And I'm very pleased to introduce our honored guest today. We have an example of a kind of collaboration that is so important to try to produce effective policy and support for the national security community. The distinguished Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 1973 and since 1977. He's been the ranking Democrat on that committee. And by the wonders in the way that our political process works today and for the next two and a half days, he's the chairman. So we are delighted to welcome the chairman. I think it's very clear that in the voices on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there was no one who has done more to have bipartisan outreach and take very effective leadership on a whole range of critical foreign policy issues. It is my honor to introduce Senator Joe Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. And as chairman of the committee, I want you to know there will be no immediate move to NMD and there will be no drawdown of troops in the Balkans and a few other things I'm about to tell you. I just want you to know ahead of time. I don't know what the hell it's going to be except I do know one thing. I'm going to miss Sandy Berger. Brent Scowcroft is a fine public servant who is a heck of a national security advisor and someone who I suspect continue to play a significant role in this administration's, new administration's formulation of its foreign policy. I think if you were quoted wherever you are accurately that if it ain't broke, it almost is or something that effect, I can tell you that in the years at Sandy Berger as a national security advisor, at least as far as I was concerned, it wasn't broken. And in terms of structural, I was asked at the table, my name is Ambassador, what changes could be taken to make sure that the relationship between Congress and the executive branch were institutionally more on imbalance and my answer to that is it depends. The fact of the matter is that we tend to have good and bad relationships of the national security advisor based upon whether or not we agree or disagree with the foreign policy he or she is required to implement on behalf of the present United States at the moment. And that was one of the good things about Sandy Berger from my perspective being the national security advisor because I agreed with him most of the time, which definitely hurts his reputation, but Sandy, as those of you know him and you all do, a fine thinker and a subtle negotiator, a skilled manager, and I suspect most know and disagree probably understood and knew the Congress and the Senate in particular better than anybody in this administration and as well as anybody in the last six administrations I have served with. He had a tremendous breadth of expertise to add to the role of national security advisor and one of the things that you could always do with Sandy is you could always be sure that you would get a straight answer at the end of the day as to what the goal and objective of the administration was and that's why he was so well respected even by those who did not agree with this administration's foreign policy. The two Clinton terms to state the obvious were wholly post-Cold War terms and I sometimes when I sit back like many of you do and try to think about it and wonder what will our successors write about this period from the early 90s and the last Bush administration through the end of the century when the wall came down, the empire crumbled and everyone began to scramble to find their place in the world and I think people are going to look back on this 30 years from now scholars and say the first four years there was this feeling of not only a certainty but a bit of euphoria that we might very well be able to remake the world in a way that was consistent with, congenial with our aims and goals that somehow democracy would begin to flourish around the world and behind quote the curtain that self-interest would be consistent with sound policy and the first four years we were in for a bit of a sad awakening. As I look at this room many of the most famous names of American foreign policy are assembled here. Not a lot of you or a lot of us were making predictions for those first four years. I noticed that the op-ed pieces in the paper all of a sudden dropped off almost to non-existent when we were so certain all of us during the pre, in the Cold War era exactly what we thought and what we would predict and what we were certain was going to happen and when this administration took office there was a clear realization that there was going to be some chaos for a while and that an awful lot of countries were literally trying to find their place in the world. I remember when we would talk about the use of force with President Clinton or with Sandy it used to be we used to be able to put together models that were pretty clear. We would say that if the Soviet Union acts in this way we'll respond in that way and if we respond in that way it's likely to produce the following result and we could game this thing out. But who the hell can game out, Saddam Hussein? Who can game out Molochovich? Who can game out a number of other powers, individual powers within their countries as to whether they know where they intend to go? Whether they have any clear notion of what their own interest is which makes the practicing of foreign policy in the interest of the United States I think a heck of a lot more difficult. It's easier these days to know what ill will flow from an action taken by another power, another nation or a despot more so than it is to be able to determine what reaction they will have to a counteraction on our part. And that makes it more complicated. It makes it more difficult. And although there's been some criticism of this administration for being pragmatic and not having a broad framework in order which to hang its foreign policy I respectfully suggest that the last thing we needed the last eight years is a clear, precise framework. A framework for what? Any of you so certain as to how the world was going to evolve? Any of you so positive about what the interest, perceived interest of Russia or China or North Korea or Yugoslavia was? Their perception of their interest? They didn't even know. This is an evolving process. And I can't think of anyone I would have rather had in the middle of this mix than a man as informed and as pragmatic as Sandy Berger. There are a number of urgent challenges this new administration is going to face as the Clinton administration would have had to continue to face if it had been followed on by a Democratic administration. The urgent challenges in the Middle East, the question of whether or not we are going to deploy a national missile defense. We have in the absence, there's a friend of mine who's just left the Senate, a Republican colleague's name was Bill Roth, who's chairman of the Finance Committee. He's truly one of my close friends, opposite parties but close friends. And for 28 years we've served together through the terms of six different presidents. We have a ceremony in Delaware, it's a brutal ceremony, at the Thursday after every general election on a Tuesday. Everyone continues a 200 and some year tradition of assembling in one of our rural counties, we only have three, Sussex County. In the geographic center of the county, the county seat Georgetown, where the circle in Georgetown is literally the geographic center of the county. And years gone by when it took time to count the votes, the farmers would come in in their wagons and sit in the circle, literally in the town cryer would stand on the second floor balcony of the courthouse which is still there and read out the results of the election. And then the winner and loser would get in one carriage and ride around the circle. Literally, literally, we still conduct that brutal ceremony today. If you lose, it's hell. If you win, it's uncomfortable. But this time we have 40, 50,000 people watching. But Bill Roth and I at those return day ceremonies just took place every two years. So we did it 14 times. When there was a change in administration, Bill used to kid and say, now it's time that you want to trade speeches. Well, it's kind of, we're going to, it's going to be interesting to see, interesting for me to see whether or not much of the rhetoric that has been uttered by my Republican colleagues in the center floor is reflective of what policy will be followed by this administration. Cole and Powell was before my committee as I speak. Just before I came down, I asked him a question relative to national most of the fence. The answer I got was much more nuanced than anything I have heard thus far from my Republican colleagues in the Senate. Much more nuanced than anything I had heard anytime during the campaign, although little was stated. When asked about Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the answer was much more nuanced than even his written statement was. It was, we will not ask you to ratify it the first half of this term. I don't know what that means, but I know that now that a new team is in charge, the realities of having to go forward with much of what has been asserted by my Republican friends in the Senate and the House, which may or may not reflect the view of this new administration, brings on a new and different focus. Now they're in charge. And I fully expect with the competent, and I mean this, I sound like I'm being gratuitous, I am not, the incredibly competent team they put together. They put together a team of people, three of whom I have known and or worked with for over 20 years. I respect them, one of whom I don't know, but I know of and everything I hear about her, she is first-rate. But as I look at the statements that the team has made over the previous two years on some of the subjects like National Myth of Defense, the Balkans, the Middle East, relationships with North Korea, I find very, very different views that they've expressed. And so the next National Security Advisor will be well served if she has the kind of talent that Sandy Berger had of bringing together different views within an administration. So there was some coherence, some coherence in the policy and reflection of that policy throughout the administration. I've never been a National Security Advisor, but in my view that's the single toughest job that the National Security Advisor has. And for example, in questioning General Powell, the answer General Powell gave today was somewhat different than the assertions I've heard up to now relative to the Balkans. And so my point is this. The next administration will be extremely well served in dealing with these incredibly complicated problems as the world still tries to figure out in every nation in the world where there are places in this new lineup. They'll be very well served if they follow the style and approach of Sandy Berger. At least I can speak to working with their own party as he worked with all the Senate, but particularly with me and with the Democrats in the United States Senate. These are going to be very difficult times with phenomenal opportunities for President-elect Bush. The new administration should heed the sobering experience of the Clinton team in negotiating with Russia and China and their allies in Asia on the issues of nationalist defense. I suspect there may even be a reconsideration, although I don't know, it's become a mantra that the ABM Treaty is obsolete. How one steps away from that will make a gigantic difference if the decision is to make it to step away from it. There are other continuing challenges that I've discussed with Secretary Designee and he will be the Secretary of State, Paul. How we maintain our alliances. For example, there's a great deal of talk about how we need to maintain our alliances. And was emphasized today by Secretary Powell. I'm going to call him that because it's inevitable. Secretary Powell, that the NATO alliance was the pillar of our relationship, the single most important alliance we had, I think was his phrase. Well, I just got back from four days in the Balkans, meeting literally, not figuratively, with every single leader. Every single major political figure in Belgrade, in Christina, in Kosovo, excuse me, in Sarajevo. And if in fact there is any follow through on the rhetoric of the campaign, there will be great difficulty in maintaining the cohesion of the alliance. And so they're going to come to grips with that very, very rapidly. And I understand being a politician. There is a distinction many times between your rhetoric and the campaign and how you are going to intend to govern. And I am confident that the women and men assembled by this team will be prudent and will move forward in a way that reflects their view of the world and the most reassuring piece of their view in my view is I think they are clearly internationalists. They have clearly rejected the minority of their own party and even a smaller minority in my party who are the neo-isolationists. But it's going to be an interesting thing to watch, at least for me, from my perspective, how this unfolds. And again, back to Sandy Berger. Sandy Berger ensured that the President of the United States had his views reflected clearly, but also that he was able to take what is not unusual in any administration different views on extremely important subjects and bring them into one voice, one view. I think that is the most difficult problem this administration is going to have with one exception the most difficult problem I have watched the last six administrations face. And this administration will be well served if Condoleezza Rice has that same capacity to be able to engender confidence of all the major players and then be able to communicate without anyone wondering whether or not he speaks for the President of the United States, render a unified view. Sandy Berger was in the last four years what we physically refer to as the go-to guy. If you wanted to know, if you needed help, you needed clarification, and you wanted to be certain, you went to Sandy Berger. Sandy Berger and I probably spent more time together than he ever wanted to do. But the truth of the matter was, it was extremely helpful and instructive. I've walked away from my experience with Sandy, his NASA Security Advisor, in all of his ability to master the subject matter before him, incredibly impressed by his knowledge of the Senate and the House and how to deal with it, and respectful of his convictions. Ladies and gentlemen, a fellow who I think is going to lead fairly big shoes to fill for the next President-elect, our NASA Security Advisor, and a man I'm truly pleased to call my friend Sandy Berger. After that, I should just sit down. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for those both kind and thoughtful words. Dick Solomon, Max Campbellman, as I look around this room, I can begin to name the dignitaries. There's so many distinguished people here. I'm delighted that you all are here. Standing here a few days before the end of my tenure, I am reminded of a story of the man who dies and goes to heaven and is blessed to receive an audience with God in awe of the freedom from human constraints of time and space. He asks respectfully, Lord, help me understand, what is a second of time like to you? And God answers, my son, to me a second is like a thousand years. The man then asks, Lord, help me understand, what is a penny like to you? To me, the Lord declares, a penny is like a million dollars. The man pauses, thanks for a moment, and then asks, Lord, would you give me a penny? And God answers, I will in a second. Perhaps somebody could bring up a glass of water, that'd be really great. An unnamed source just gave me that. I guess I'm the unnamed source. At times the past eight years, it's felt like they've gone by in a second. At times, many of you here who have been in government knows it seemed like a thousand years. But either way in a few days, I will end my tenure as National Security Advisor, grateful for the opportunity that President Clinton has given me to serve this extraordinary moment in our history. And I very much appreciate, Dick, this forum to look back on these eight years, and just as important, to look forward to the challenges that lie ahead. Let me begin with the extraordinary year that has just ended. There was China's agreement to join the WTO, the victory of an opposition party in Mexico, the downfall of Milosevic, the peace we helped broker between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the President's historic visits to India and Vietnam, our success in funding debt relief and reforming the United Nations due structures so that we could finally, with the help of Senator Biden, repair our relationship with that institution. Of course, past year, it's had its share of disappointments and tragedies. Sitting at the Norfolk Naval Base with survivors of the USS Cole, reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war. I think it's fair to describe this. And despite all the progress we have made in the Middle East, it will be sad if the promise of this moment in history slips away. But I know this. Sooner or later, hopefully before too much bloodshed and tears, Israelis and Palestinians will return to the very same questions they confront today with the very same inescapable decisions. They can postpone the moment of truth, but they cannot escape the reality that they must find a way to live side by side.