Introduction: The Threat 
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, “it’s the economy, stupid” became the unofficial slogan of the Clinton campaign.  The phrase provided the campaign with a sound-byte that demonstrated their focus on domestic issues like health care and education.  And it insinuated that the current president was too preoccupied with matters overseas to understand real issues.  In the end, the domestic emphasis embodied by the slogan was credited in large measure for the Clinton victory. 

The theory – confirmed by the election results – was that domestic issues would carry the day and foreign policy matters did not resonate or have much meaning with the American public. The result has been that, for much of the past decade, policymakers and the public haven’t paid adequate attention to international affairs.  It wasn’t just the Clinton Administration.  In fact, during the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, many Republican candidates were elected to Congress proud of the fact that they didn’t possess a passport.  Not surprisingly, upon taking office, they advocated an isolationist foreign policy. 

After the events of last year, however, we’ve come to realize that foreign policy matters a great deal; indeed it mattered all along.  Whether we’re talking about trade, military strategy, diplomacy or energy policy, there are very real consequences to the policies we advance and implement overseas.  Americans should – and must – care about foreign relations; we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the rest of the world.  Issues such as prosecuting the war on terrorism and determining how best to increase the number of our allies and reduce the number of our enemies are central to America’s national and economic security.  These are frontburner matters that have a real impact on the way we live our lives. 

The notion that we should somehow disentangle ourselves from overseas ties and obligations is not an option.  Whether we like it or not, we profoundly impact the rest of the world.  The process of globalization has made the world smaller and has heightened American and “Western” influence.  So it is not a matter of, “should we or should we not” engage with the rest of the world.  Instead, we must work to determine how best to we deal with the international community. 

As we undertake this process, it’s clear to me that foreign policy decisions not only require the attention of the American people, but they also require a coherent framework.  Similar to the bold leadership demonstrated by the Marshall Plan after World War II, we need an aggressive, comprehensive plan.  We’ve lost some momentum in the battle of ideas; with the right strategy I have no doubt that we’ll it win back. 

The most threatening opponents to the American way of life and globalization are Islamic fundamentalists, whose terrorist organizations devastated this country on September 11 and have continued to terrorize Western targets since.  Islamic fundamentalists are not alone, however, in questioning America and globalization.  Europeans, especially leftist activists, and rebel groups around the world, are also questioning globalization, capitalism, and, because we are seen as the country who most benefits from these things, America. 

I believe the reason we've struggled in our international relations is twofold: first, we haven't advocated those values of freedom and opportunity as well as we should have, and secondly, we haven't figured out how to present globalization -- and this is not only in terms of marketing but certainly in terms of reality -- in a way the rest of the world can comfortably embrace. 
Make no mistake, the manner in which we present globalization and “Westernization” has a direct bearing on the ability of al Qaeda – and other Islamic fundamentalist groups – to recruit new members.  We must work to make developing nations true partners in globalization and help them build their domestic capacity with an emphasis on sustainable development.  By doing so, we demonstrate to the rest of the world that we understand the importance of real development and multilateral ties.  Indeed, as a nation we need to understand that there is a cost to being unilateralist.  It undercuts our ability to work with allies to fight terrorism and thus reduces our national and economic security. 

To this end, we must more effectively articulate our values to the rest of the world.  Every American should be proud of the values our nation stands for: freedom, opportunity, and the rule of law.  These are the very values that millions of people throughout the world admire and seek to emulate.  I think we can all agree that a nation built upon these values is better than one in which people are oppressed, stuck in poverty, ruled by unelected leaders, and women are treated like second-class citizens.  This truth is so clear to us here in America that we find it hard to believe that it's not accepted as fact around the world.  Unfortunately, in some parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, people don't see it that way at all because we're known more for exporting Coca Cola and McDonald’s instead of exporting freedom and democracy. 

To fight the enemy, our strategy has to change.  In the Cold War, we supported many undemocratic and, frankly, repressive regimes.  Our enemy was the Soviet Union, and we fought the enemy through proxy wars around the globe.  We can no longer afford to support undemocratic and repressive regimes, because the enemy is no longer a superpower state; rather, the enemy is borne through undemocratic and repressive regimes that have too often been propped up by America and the West. 

While it’s not reasonable to require that these regimes become overnight democracies, some measure of progress is required.  Fundamentally, we have to expect more from our partners and that means they must show respect for basic values like freedom, opportunity and the rule of law. 

Part of the reason we haven’t done a better job of pushing other countries, particularly Middle Eastern countries where the Islamic fundamentalist movement is thriving, toward treating their people better is that we’re fighting that battle with one hand tied behind our backs. 

Our dependence on foreign oil is hurting our ability to embark on the foreign policy best for our nation, the foreign policy truest to our values.  We refuse to end our dependency on oil; in fact, the Administration’s own energy plan - ANWR drilling included -  would actually increase our dependency on foreign oil instead of lessening it. 

We can’t have an honest discussion of Middle East foreign policy without recognizing the following fact: we must invest in alternative and renewable sources of energy.  Wind and solar, once thought of as pie-in-the-sky dreams, are now within cents of being financially competitive with fossil fuels.  Biomass and fuel cells show great promise.  We need an Apollo project on energy and unleash the great American spirit of innovation to make our country energy independent in 20 years. 

Without a reliance on the oil of the Middle East, we’ll be better able to make foreign policy decisions reflecting America’s values.  The “Arab Street” will see us more as honest brokers than customers of their repressive, oil-funded regimes.  This is critically important to our future, and it is one area where I fundamentally disagree with the direction of the current Administration. 

We also need to figure out how to make globalization work for the rest of the world.  America has only 3 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume 25 percent of the world’s resources.  Is it any wonder that the rest of the world, the developing world in particular, looks at globalization and its leader, America, with a skeptical eye? 

Globalization means that the world is more interconnected than ever.  That means we need more friends than enemies.  Unfortunately, we are acting more like a cowboy in the Wild West -- unilateralist.  From the Kyoto protocol to the ABM treaty to the sustainable development summit in Johannesburg, we haven’t shown the kind of respect for the international community and organizations that a nation who insisted on those very organizations and rule of law should. 

Simply put, we behave too arrogantly.  I happened to be in Asia the week after President Bush announced the steel tariffs.  The story had already died in America - there was only some residual analysis of what the move would do to Bush’s re-election efforts in key steel states.  Overseas, however, was a different story.  Every day, in Beijing, Taipei, and Hong Kong, there were headlines on the new steel tariffs.  This was happening in Europe as well.  Our unilateral approach was a slap in the face to the rest of the world, and perhaps even more upsetting, no one here in America seemed to care. 

Diplomacy and Communications 
I also fear we’ve forgotten the importance of diplomacy and communications.  While we successfully sell our music, food and clothing to people in every nation, we have not been nearly as successful at "selling" our values throughout the developing world, especially in the Middle East. 

Throughout the Cold War, our government used so-called “public diplomacy” to win the hearts and minds of people throughout the world.  While the term has become a catch-all, it generally refers to the effort to shape the overseas communications environment where American foreign policy is played out and to inform or influence public opinion.  Public diplomacy can include publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television among other techniques. 

This important tool has fallen by the wayside.  Post Cold War arrogance combined with the slashing of the international affairs budget led to the evisceration of our capacity to communicate with the rest of world.  As a result, thousands of young minds have become indoctrinated with the anti-west, anti-modern ideology that Osama bin Laden espouses.  We have not been in a position to counter this hatred and have suffered from its consequences. 

We must aggressively reform and update of State Department training and practices to reflect the new globalized world, including requiring public diplomacy training for foreign service officers and ambassadors.  Currently, there is almost no communications training for these critical personnel.  They are on the front lines of our nation’s foreign policy and must play a key role in making clear the rationale and goals of our positions. 

Unfortunately, we still lack the basic ability to communicate with our target audiences in their own languages: the Army reports they still have 15,000 unfilled positions requiring proficiency in 62 languages, and the State Department reported 2,581 such positions. 

Also, we must allocate more funding for communications activities, including web sites, radio program, briefings for foreign journalists and collateral materials.  Public-private partnerships must play a role as well.  Again, we have the best marketing minds in the world.  They must be leveraged in order to communicate more effectively with the rest of the world 

International Assistance 
Of course, it’s not enough to simply communicate America’s values to the Middle East and other regions of the country.  We must also seek to combat poverty and improve people's quality of life, including health care, education, and environment.  Few challenges are more destabilizing, and seemingly intractable, for the developing world. 

These issues do in fact affect our national security.  Poverty creates not only hopelessness but a breeding ground for terrorist organizations seeking to grow their ranks from among the poorest and most dispossessed.  By the same token, making progress toward improving child and family health care, reducing AIDS and providing educational assistance can contribute significantly not only to the well being of many millions of people, but can also heighten stability of states that are currently on the margins of the world community.  Consider the following facts: 

• Half of the world's population lives on less than $2 per day - nearly a fifth live on less than $1 per day. 
• Today there are 36 million AIDS cases and 22 million people have already died.  Some estimates indicate that there could be 100 million cases of AIDS in four years. 
• Over the next 50 years, the world's population is expected to grow by 50 percent with much of that growth occurring in nations that are perhaps least able to accommodate a surging population. 
• In too many areas, children are not provided education, they are instead indoctrinated by madrasas’ fundamentalist, anti-Western rants. 

After September 11th, we must view aid as an investment that can help mitigate the effects of poverty and disease, foster global stability, build alliances throughout the world and reduce the sense of hopelessness that drives so many to extremist organizations like the al Qaeda network. In March 2002, President Bush pledged to increase U.S. assistance by 50 percent over the next three years -- the biggest rise in 45 years -- that would result in a $15-billion increase by 2006. This is a step in the right direction. We must not only ensure that these funds are appropriated each year but that they do the greatest good for the most people. 

While there are a host of policies we can and should adopt to make our foreign aid as effective as possible -- including debt forgiveness, student transfers, an improved Peace Corps, increased funding to the global health initiative, and expanding microcredit programs -- two areas we can make an enormous difference on include education and sustainable development.  Americans, more than any other people, understand the value and importance of education.  We know that education is the key to opportunity.  We must lead the way in helping developing nations create an education system that can dramatically improve their quality of life.  I applaud the Bush Administration for recently bringing leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan to America to show them some of our religious schools here in America, to show them that religion and real education can co-exist.  This is a good step forward, but we also need to provide some of the nuts-and-bolts necessary to build an education system -- buildings, books, even teachers. 

America also understands the importance of sustainable development.  We’ve learned that a lack of environmental stewardship creates health hazards, urban decay, and costly cleanup.  We should lead the way through technology transfers and assistance to show the developing world how to create jobs and build factories without doing irreparable damage to their environment. 

Trade and Economic Engagement 
While critically important, aid alone will not do the job.  As the old adage goes, teaching a man to fish is far more valuable than simply giving him a fish.  To build a country with real economic growth, with a real middle class, and with prospects for the future, the governments of the Middle East must embrace policies to liberalize and open up their economies. 

While the Middle East has the fastest growing labor force in the world, exports, foreign investment, and imports have actually decreased in the past twenty-five years.   This is largely due to the high barriers those governments have erected themselves: average tariff rates are over twenty percent, many imports are banned altogether, and the customs and trade bureaucracies are among the most corrupt in the world. 

One only needs to look at the export-dependent, liberal economies of Southeast Asia - which have grown by leaps and bounds and, while not perfect, have created middle classes -   in comparison with the closed policies of the Middle East to conclude that there is a better way. 

In the next Congress, I will propose a New Middle East Trade Policy, one that would reward “good behavior” in nations with improved access to American markets.  Quite simply, it makes no sense to provide billions in aid to countries but then restrict their ability to grow their way out of poverty and desperation. 

This will take some political will here in America, but it is absolutely necessary.  We can no longer tell the people in developing nations who are starving and living in abject poverty that we’re afraid to compete with them and that they are a threat to American jobs, at the same time we’re consuming 20 percent of the world’s goods.  This is part of an overall attitude of American arrogance that is offensive, and rightly so, to the rest of the world. 

A New Middle East Trade Policy would require that nations meet a set of eligibility conditions, including demonstrating that they are partners in the war against terrorism, respect of basic human rights, and certain domestic economic reforms, for example.  These countries would then receive duty-free and quota-free access to the U.S. market for some manufactured goods and agricultural products. 

Labor-intensive factory goods, such as luggage, shoes, and clothes, have some of the highest tariffs in America: clothes average 18 percent, and luggage 18.3 percent.  The region’s agricultural products such as olives, nuts, figs, and dates, are also slapped with steep tariffs in America.  U.S. tariffs for dates range up to 13.2 cents per kilo, olives 10.1 percent per kilo, and sardines a 20 percent tariff. 

These are among the goods the Middle East region could be exporting to America in greater quantity, providing its people with jobs and a better standard of living.  To be sure, some policies can be changed only through the regimes themselves - they must move towards greater acceptance of imports, foreign investment, and intra-region trade.  We can help by offering technical and capacity-building assistance to help nations improve their infrastructure to modernize and enter the global community. 

The small country of Jordan offers an interesting case study.  Unlike much of the Middle East, Jordan has few geographic advantages, most importantly the lack of oil.  In the last few years, Jordan has reduced its tariffs and other trade barriers, opened a number of services industries to international investment, joined the WTO, created “Qualifying Industrial Zones” through which the United States offers duty-free treatment to the products created there, and most recently concluded a Free Trade Agreement with the United States.  As a result, foreign investment has skyrocketed.  Export growth has risen from $16 million in 1998 to $72 million in 2000, and virtually all of the growth is in labor-intensive fields, such as apparel, jewelry, and luggage.  The Qualifying Industrial Zones have created 25,000 new manufacturing jobs alone, and tens of thousands of Jordanians now have the opportunity to find jobs and grow their economy. 

We also negotiated a landmark labor provision in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which must be another integral part of any Middle East Trade Policy - we can’t allow the region to go from political repression to economic repression.  Corporate America has a responsibility to treat its foreign workers with respect and improve people’s quality of life, not just save a few bucks on labor costs. 

Engagement works; isolation doesn’t.  We need to once again consider trade a part of our foreign policy and utilize it as such.  This isn’t a new idea - Most Favored Nation status was essentially a foreign policy tool used to fight communism, and one that was largely successful. 

Sustainable development 
Clearly, this reinforces the fact that we must address the need to promote sustainable development in the developing world.  Throughout the 1980's and 90's, the United States promoted economic policies abroad that were very good for American investors, but not good enough for the citizens of many developing nations.  In order to encourage foreign investment, trade with the U.S., or qualify for IMF and World Bank support, for example, developing states were put on a strict diet of tax cuts and spending cuts, particularly in the area of social programs, and the classic laissez-faire approach to government.  This strategy favored foreign investors, but did not promote sustainable development. 

Our country made a conscious decision about a hundred years ago to write some rules for our new industrial age economy, rules that would help create a vibrant middle class and ultimately better societies.  We need to create those rules for the new globalization age.  As Henry Ford said, workers must be able to afford the products they create.  We're failing at this right now, because few -- if any -- of the workers in the developing world can afford the products they're making.  We're not going to make this happen overnight, but we need to do better and I know that we can. 

We also need a system that doesn't simply create vast fields of opportunity for foreign investors, but creates better societies for the people who live there.  The reality is that education and health care are central to improving the quality of life for citizens whether they live in Mexico, Thailand or Somalia, and the current international market prescription of low taxes and almost no social spending almost guarantees that people's quality of life will not improve.  The United States needs to re-examine these prescriptions and instead fight for a balanced plan that promotes sustainable development.  This is not only a matter of basic fairness, but it goes directly to the manner in which we are perceived by the rest of the world.   We need to ask ourselves if we want to be seen as a nation that has furthered policies of despair and poverty or whether we want to be partners in helping empower those in developing countries. 

Military Leadership 
I've spoken about communications, foreign assistance and trade as critical elements of a new foreign policy framework.  But there are, and will continue to be, times when these tools cannot by themselves advance our national interest.  When other levers don't work, our military plays an important role our foreign policy implementation. 

First, we must strengthen our relationships with our allies who are also committed to fighting the scourge of terrorism. We must aggressively build coalitions around our shared interests and values to demonstrate to the world that the United States is not simply waging a campaign against Islam. The challenge, scope and cost, of the battle against these extremist groups is great and the international community has a clear stake in ensuring the victory of our ideas. 

In this new world, our soldiers are called to a battlefield that is much different than that of the past.  Smaller numbers of troops are rapidly deployed to far-flung theaters across the world.  Their dominance must be measured not only in firepower, but in communications and access to information.  There is no question that our military is heads and shoulders above the rest of the world, but we must continue to "transform" our forces to become a lighter, more nimble force that leverages information technology. 

As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I've focused a great deal of my work on making sure we have the best and most advanced fighting force in the world. I'm proud to represent both Fort Lewis, the Army's testbed for Transformation, and McChord Air Force Base, home of some of the most technologically advanced airlift capabilities in the Air Force. We've had success, but there is more work to be done: we must develop new war-fighting technologies, update our military doctrine and transform our forces. The Bush Administration came into office purporting to be strong supporters of transformation. Unfortunately, their progress on this front has occurred in fits and starts.  It is my strong hope that the White House will recommit to this crucial goal. 

The operations in Afghanistan were a good example of how technology can be utilized to make our weapons more effective while reducing our soldiers' exposure to harm. Our growing inventory of new precision-guided weapons let us destroy more targets with fewer aircraft sorties. Better communications let our air and ground forces work together more effectively. The growing integration of our intelligence let our forces know where moving targets were. We were able to blend manned and unmanned aircraft into a new, more effective type of warfare. 

The Pentagon must build on these successes and gain greater resolve to not only transform our warfighting capabilities, but also the bureaucracy itself. This means that the services must have the ability to procure and field weapons and technologies more quickly. Training must be revamped to use innovations like distance learning. The government cannot spend years developing new technologies when commercial products are readily available.  We must expand intelligence capabilities - through more on the ground "human intelligence" but also through technology that allows for better data analysis and sharing. There are companies right here in the Puget Sound area that are leading the way toward empowering our intelligence agencies to protect their data while sharing it with those who need it. These are the types of partnerships that must be used if we are to protect our borders, prosecute the war on terrorism and prevent future attacks. 

Conclusion 
Finally, in regards to the Middle East, we must clearly support a two-state solution to the ongoing crisis in that region.  Provided there is an immediate end to the suicide bombing campaign, we must be prepared to back a Palestinian state – as well as the associated aid and assistance.  That is the only way we can put an end to the years of violence and suffering among Israelis and Palestinians alike.  We must continue to stand by Israel, but they must be willing to stop annexing land and expanding their settlements. 

Our nation is faced with a set of challenges very different from those faced by previous generations.  As we adjust to better respond to the new reality, I’m confident that our values of freedom and opportunity provide the foundation on which to craft a new foreign policy framework. 

The fundamentalist Islamic movement is presenting an alternate vision - based on hatred and violence -  that has made gains, especially among the poorest and most disenfranchised.  Much of the rest of the world - the "undecideds" if you will - are trying to determine whether or not to embrace our values and our way of life. 

To win the current battle, we must address some of the shortcomings of globalization and also demonstrates that this path is highly preferable to that offered by the extremists.  We must show that we are committed to ensuring that nations in the developing world are partners in the benefits of globalization. 

As we undertake the process of crafting a new foreign policy, we have opportunities .  We can marshal our resources and expertise to reduce poverty, improve health care and provide education to children who represent the best hope for much of the developing world. 

We can establish energy independence that will lead not only to new energy technologies and an improved environment, but also a renewed commitment to a foreign policy best for our nation and truest to our values. 

We can build vibrant diplomatic and military alliances that not only improve our nation’s security, but forge an international consensus for  human rights, freedom and democracy. 
As our country worked to contain communism and promote democracy and freedom overseas after World War II, Harry Truman realized that we had to make some fundamental changes in our own country.  We could not speak with authority about democracy and freedom in the era of Jim Crow, when so many Americans were treated as second-class citizens.  To achieve our foreign policy goals, we had to make changes at home.  Now, to achieve what we want at home - security - we have to make changes in our foreign policy.  We need to be a more positive player on the global stage, and that will require an enormous amount of commitment by both leaders and the American public.  It’s vitally important, and I appreciate the opportunity today to share my vision as to how we go about this task.