[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8116-H8125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               NATO ENLARGEMENT FACILITATION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3564) to amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to 
expedite the transition to full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3564

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) The NATO Alliance is, and has been since its inception, 
     purely defensive in character, and it poses no threat to any 
     nation. The enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include as 
     full and equal members emerging democracies in Central and 
     Eastern Europe will serve to reinforce stability and security 
     in Europe by fostering their integration into the structures 
     which have created and sustained peace in Europe since 1945. 
     Their admission to NATO will not threaten any nation. 
     America's security, freedom, and prosperity remain linked to 
     the security of the countries of Europe.
       (3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to a mutual defense has made possible the democratic 
     transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. Members of the 
     Alliance can and should play a critical role in addressing 
     the security challenges of the post-Cold War era and in 
     creating the stable environment needed for those emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to successfully 
     complete political and economic transformation.
       (4) The United States continues to regard the political 
     independence and territorial integrity of all emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as vital to 
     European peace and security.
       (5) NATO has enlarged its membership on 3 different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (6) Congress has sought to facilitate the further 
     enlargement of NATO at an early date by enacting the NATO 
     Participation

[[Page H8117]]

     Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 
     note) and the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995 
     (section 585 of Public Law 104-107).
       (7) The Partnership for Peace, created in 1994 under 
     American leadership, has fostered cooperation between NATO 
     and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and offers a 
     path to future membership in the Alliance and a permanent 
     security relationship between participants in the Partnership 
     for Peace and members of NATO.
       (8) As new members of NATO assume the responsibilities of 
     Alliance membership, the costs of maintaining stability in 
     Europe will be shared more widely. The concurrent assumption 
     of greater responsibility and development of greater 
     capabilities by the European members of NATO in pursuit of a 
     European security and defense identity will further reinforce 
     burdensharing. Facilitation of the enlargement process will 
     require current members of NATO, and the United States in 
     particular, to demonstrate the political will needed to build 
     on successful ongoing programs such as the Warsaw Initiative 
     and the Partnership for Peace by making available the 
     resources necessary to supplement efforts prospective new 
     members are themselves undertaking.
       (9) New members will be full members of the Alliance, 
     enjoying all rights and assuming all the obligations under 
     the Washington Treaty.
       (10) In order to assist emerging democracies in Central and 
     Eastern Europe that have expressed interest in joining NATO 
     to be prepared to assume the responsibilities of NATO 
     membership, the United States should encourage and support 
     efforts by such countries to develop force structures and 
     force modernization priorities that will enable such 
     countries to contribute to the full range of NATO missions, 
     including, most importantly, territorial defense of the 
     Alliance.
       (11) Cooperative regional peacekeeping initiatives 
     involving emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe 
     that have expressed interest in joining NATO, such as the 
     Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion, the Polish-Lithuanian Joint 
     Peacekeeping Force, and the Polish-Ukrainian Peacekeeping 
     Force, can make an important contribution to European peace 
     and security and international peacekeeping efforts, can 
     assist those countries preparing to assume the 
     responsibilities of possible NATO membership, and accordingly 
     should receive appropriate support from the United States.
       (12) NATO remains the only multilateral security 
     organization capable of conducting effective military 
     operations and preserving security and stability of the Euro-
     Atlantic region.
       (13) NATO is an important diplomatic forum and has played a 
     positive role in defusing tensions between members of the 
     Alliance and, as a result, no military action has occurred 
     between two Alliance member states since the inception of 
     NATO in 1949.
       (14) The process of enlarging NATO to include emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be a 
     continuing process and progress toward the admission of 
     additional emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe 
     will depend on the degree to which these countries meet the 
     criteria set forth in section 203(d)(3) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994.
       (15) Protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and 
     human rights is an integral aspect of genuine security, and 
     in evaluating requests for membership in NATO, the human 
     rights records of the emerging democracies in Central and 
     Eastern Europe should be evaluated in light of the 
     obligations and commitments of these countries under the 
     Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of 
     Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act.
       (16) A number of Central and Eastern European countries 
     have expressed interest in NATO membership, and have taken 
     concrete steps to demonstrate this commitment; including 
     their participation in Partnership for Peace activities.
       (17) Democratic civilian control of defense forces is an 
     essential element in the process of preparation for those 
     states interested in possible NATO membership.
       (18) The security and economic stability of the Caucasus 
     region is important to the United States, and the countries 
     of the Caucasus region should not be precluded from future 
     membership in NATO. The United States should continue to 
     promote policies that encourage economic and fiscal reforms, 
     private sector growth, and political reforms in the Caucasus 
     region.
       (19) In recognition that not all countries which have 
     requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the 
     same pace, the accession date for each new member may vary.
       (20) The process of NATO enlargement entails the consensus 
     agreement of the governments of all 16 NATO members and 
     ratification in accordance with their constitutional 
     procedures.
       (21) The provision of additional NATO transition assistance 
     should include those emerging democracies most ready for 
     closer ties with NATO and should be designed to assist other 
     countries meeting specified criteria of eligibility to move 
     forward toward eventual NATO membership.
       (22) Lasting security and stability in Europe requires not 
     only the military integration of emerging democracies of 
     Central and Eastern Europe into existing European structures, 
     but also the eventual economic and political integration of 
     these countries into existing European structures.
       (23) The Congress of the United States finds that Poland, 
     Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made the most progress 
     toward achieving the stated criteria and should be eligible 
     for the additional assistance described in this bill.
       (24) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be 
     based on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria 
     for NATO membership, which require enhancement of NATO's 
     security and the approval of all NATO members.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to 
     adapt the role of the NATO Alliance to the post-Cold War 
     world;
       (2) to actively assist the emerging democracies in Central 
     and Eastern Europe in their transition so that such countries 
     may eventually qualify for NATO membership;
       (3) to ensure that all countries in Central and Eastern 
     Europe are fully aware of the costs and responsibilities of 
     NATO membership, including the obligation set forth in 
     Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty that new members be 
     able to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic 
     area, and further to ensure that all countries admitted to 
     NATO are capable of assuming those costs and 
     responsibilities; and
       (4) to work to define a constructive and cooperative 
     political and security relationship between an enlarged NATO 
     and the Russian Federation.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FURTHER ENLARGEMENT 
                   OF NATO.

       It is the sense of the Congress that in order to promote 
     economic stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Moldova, and 
     Ukraine--
       (1) the United States should continue to support the full 
     and active participation of these countries in activities 
     appropriate for qualifying for NATO membership;
       (2) the United States Government should continue to use all 
     diplomatic means available to press the European Union to 
     admit as soon as possible any country which qualifies for 
     membership; and
       (3) the United States Government and the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization should continue to support military 
     exercises and peacekeeping initiatives between and among 
     these nations and members of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND 
                   LITHUANIA.

       In view of the forcible incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, 
     and Lithuania into the Soviet Union in 1940 under the 
     Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the refusal of the United States 
     and other countries to recognize that incorporation for over 
     50 years, it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have valid historical 
     security concerns that must be taken into account by the 
     United States; and
       (2) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should not be 
     disadvantaged in seeking to join NATO by virtue of their 
     forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union.

     SEC. 6. DESIGNATION OF COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR NATO 
                   ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The following countries are designated as 
     eligible to receive assistance under the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to 
     section 203(d) of such Act: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic.
       (b) Authority to Designate Other Countries Not Precluded.--
     The process of enlarging NATO to include emerging democracies 
     in Central and Eastern Europe should not stop with the 
     admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full 
     members of the NATO Alliance. Accordingly, the designation of 
     countries pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be deemed to 
     preclude the designation by the President of other Central 
     and Eastern European countries pursuant to section 203(d) of 
     the NATO Participation Act of 1994 as eligible to receive 
     assistance under the program established under section 203(a) 
     of such Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
       (b) Availability.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (a)--
       (1) not less than $20,000,000 shall be available for the 
     subsidy cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990, of direct loans pursuant to the authority 
     of section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     (relating to the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'');
       (2) not less than $30,000,000 shall be available for 
     assistance on a grant basis pursuant to the authority of 
     section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     (relating to the ``Foreign Military Financing Program''); and
       (3) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     assistance pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(3) of 
     the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (relating to international 
     military education and training).

[[Page H8118]]

       (c) Rule of Construction.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under this section are authorized to be 
     appropriated in addition to such amounts as otherwise may be 
     available for such purposes.

     SEC. 8. REGIONAL AIRSPACE INITIATIVE AND PARTNERSHIP FOR 
                   PEACE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Funds described in subsection (b) are 
     authorized to be made available to support the implementation 
     of the Regional Airspace Initiative and the Partnership for 
     Peace Information Management System, including--
       (1) the procurement of items in support of these programs; 
     and
       (2) the transfer of such items to countries participating 
     in these programs, which may include Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Romania, Slovenia, Albania, Ukraine, and Bulgaria.
       (b) Funds Described.--Funds described in this subsection 
     are funds that are available--
       (1) during any fiscal year under the NATO Participation Act 
     of 1994 with respect to countries eligible for assistance 
     under that Act; or
       (2) during fiscal year 1997 under any Act to carry out the 
     Warsaw Initiative.

     SEC. 9. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       (a) Priority Delivery.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the delivery of excess defense articles under the 
     authority of section 203(c) (1) and (2) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 and section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be given priority to the maximum 
     extent feasible over the delivery of such excess defense 
     articles to all other countries except those countries 
     referred to in section 541 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995 
     (Public Law 103-306; 108 Stat. 1640).
       (b) Cooperative Regional Peacekeeping Initiatives.--The 
     Congress encourages the President to provide excess defense 
     articles and other appropriate assistance to cooperative 
     regional peacekeeping initiatives involving emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed 
     an interest in joining NATO in order to enhance their ability 
     to contribute to European peace and security and 
     international peacekeeping efforts.

     SEC. 10. MODERNIZATION OF DEFENSE CAPABILITY.

       The Congress endorses efforts by the United States to 
     modernize the defense capability of Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, and any other countries designed by the 
     President pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994, by exploring with such countries 
     options for the sale or lease to such countries of weapons 
     systems compatible with those used by NATO members, including 
     air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft, and 
     telecommunications infrastructure.

     SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) Termination of Eligibility.--The eligibility of a 
     country designated pursuant to section 6(a) or pursuant to 
     section 203(d) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 may be 
     terminated upon determination by the President that such 
     country no longer meets the criteria set forth in section 
     203(d)(3) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
       (b) Notification.--At least 15 days before terminating the 
     eligibility of any country pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     President shall notify the congressional committees specified 
     in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in 
     accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming 
     notifications under that section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will 
each be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous materials.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House H.R. 3564, the 
NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act.
  Almost 7 years have passed since the revolutions of 1989 swept 
communism from most of Central and Eastern Europe. Since that date, the 
emerging democracies of that region have waited patiently to be invited 
into Western political, economic and security structures.
  This bill stands for the proposition that neither we nor the emerging 
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe can afford to wait any 
longer. Only by taking this step now can we ensure that the democratic 
gains of the last 7 year are not going to be reversed.
  After today's vote, it is hoped that we will never hear again that 
the Congress does not support NATO enlargement. We will support it. 
Indeed, for more than 2 years now, we have been criticizing the 
administration for moving too slowly to enlarge NATO.
  On February 20 of this year, I wrote to the President urging him to 
implement the NATO Participation Act which we enacted into law almost 2 
years ago, and I recommended in particular the designation of Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic as the first countries eligible to 
receive assistance under that act. Earlier this year, the President 
rejected our recommendations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record my exchange of correspondence 
with the President:

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                Washington, DC, February 20, 1996.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On February 12th, you signed into law 
     Public Law 104-107, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. 
     Section 585 of this law amends the NATO Participation Act of 
     1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447) to facilitate use by 
     you of the authorities provided by the NATO Participation Act 
     to assist the transition to full NATO membership of certain 
     Central and Easter European countries emerging from communist 
     domination.
       In addition, section 585 expresses the sense of the 
     Congress that, within 60 days of enactment, you should 
     designate the first Central and Eastern European countries 
     eligible to receive transition assistance under the NATO 
     Participation Act.
       As the principal author of the NATO Participation Act, I 
     have been disappointed by the fact that, over fifteen months 
     after the enactment of that Act, the Administration has yet 
     to utilize the authority provided by the Act to expedite 
     expansion of the NATO alliance. In light of the revisions to 
     that Act made by section 585 of Public Law 104-107, as well 
     as section 585's call on you to designate the first countries 
     eligible to receive assistance under the Act, I urge you to 
     move quickly to designate Central and Eastern European 
     countries to receive assistance under the Act. In particular, 
     I urge that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic be so 
     designated.
       Prompt designation by you of, at a minimum, Poland, 
     Hungary, and the Czech Republic as eligible countries will 
     send a powerful signal to these countries of the 
     determination of both the Congress and your Administration to 
     expand NATO at an early date. It also will permit you to 
     begin providing additional forms of assistance to facilitate 
     the transition of these countries to full NATO membership.
       I am convinced that the United States can no longer afford 
     to delay deciding which Central and Eastern European 
     countries will be the first admitted to NATO. We are already 
     to the point where some are beginning to ask not whether it 
     is too early to expand NATO, but rather whether it is too 
     late. Further delay can only heighten the risk that the 
     countries of Central and Eastern Europe will feel abandoned 
     by the West and will consider departing from the path of 
     reform on which they embarked in 1989.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                               Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.
     Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter on the 
     admission of new members to NATO. I am aware of your 
     considerable efforts in support of NATO enlargement, 
     including co-authorship of the NATO Participation Act, and I 
     value your views on how to achieve our mutual goal. I have 
     made this one of my top foreign policy priorities and will 
     ensure that it remains at the top of NATO's agenda. As a 
     result of U.S. leadership, NATO's enlargement is in progress 
     and will happen.
       At my initiative, NATO began a process in January 1994 that 
     will result in the admission of new members to the Alliance. 
     By taking in new members from among Europe's new democracies, 
     NATO can help lock in the very substantial progress that has 
     been made there in instituting democratic and market economic 
     reforms. Enlargement will serve to erase the illegitimate 
     lines of the Cold War and provide the security underpinning 
     for a growing, undivided transatlantic community.
       We have already made solid, steady progress, at a pace that 
     reflects the many substantial security commitments and 
     practical preparations necessary to admit new members to the 
     Alliance. Last fall, NATO completed its study on the 
     mechanisms and rationale of enlargement and presented the 
     results to our partners in Central Europe and the New 
     Independent States. In December, NATO agreed to move into a 
     second phase of the process consisting of intensified 
     preparations by both NATO and aspiring members. Practically, 
     this means detailed, individual consultations between NATO 
     and self-identified candidates and an enhanced program of 
     preparatory activities, conducted nationally and through the 
     Partnership for Peace. Eleven partners, (Albania, Bulgaria, 
     the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) have thus far asked to 
     participate in this phase.

[[Page H8119]]

       Allies have agreed that NATO enlargement's second phase 
     will run through 1996 and that our Foreign Ministers will 
     address next steps at the North Atlantic Council in December. 
     I agree that we must maintain the momentum of the NATO 
     enlargement process. It is my objective that, as Secretary 
     Christopher recently told his Central European 
     counterparts, NATO will move to greater specificity on the 
     question of enlargement's ``who and when'' at the December 
     meeting and its immediate follow-on.
       As NATO moves ahead, my Administration is pursuing a 
     comprehensive strategy to ensure that enlargement succeeds. 
     The first element for success lies in building and 
     maintaining a durable Allied consensus in support of 
     enlargement. Admission of any new member to NATO, precisely 
     because of the seriousness of the security commitments 
     involved, must have the full support of all of its current 
     members. We must be careful that actions we undertake in 
     support of the enlargement process do not have the 
     inadvertent effect of undermining Allied consensus and 
     thereby slowing progress.
       A second element needed for success is to place NATO 
     enlargement in the context of a broad, balanced and 
     integrated approach to increasing stability and security 
     throughout the transatlantic area by building a cooperative 
     security structure in Europe. This includes a revitalized 
     NATO, support for enlargement of the European Union, 
     strengthening the OSCE and enhanced cooperation with other 
     states not immediately aspiring to NATO membership or who may 
     not be in the initial group of states invited to begin 
     accession talks with the Alliance. It also includes a strong 
     and productive relationship between the Alliance and Russia, 
     given the key role Russia can play in shaping a stable and 
     secure Europe.
       A third element critical for success is encouraging 
     prospective members to prepare seriously for the full range 
     of military and political responsibilities they will need to 
     assume if and when they become members. Aspiring Allies need 
     adequate time to prepare for these obligations. NATO, too, 
     faces a major task in preparing itself for enlargement. We 
     have already begun a comprehensive review of the internal 
     adjustments NATO must make to admit new Allies.
       To their credit, partners have not waited to be 
     ``designated'' as eligible for membership before undertaking 
     the basic reforms and preparations we have made clear they 
     must pursue. The prospect of NATO membership has proven to be 
     a most powerful incentive for both domestic reform and the 
     resolution of ethnic and territorial conflict. Your 
     legislation specifically urges me to designate Poland, the 
     Czech Republic and Hungary as eligible for assistance under 
     the NATO Participation Act. These countries are indeed making 
     substantial progress and I agree they will be strong 
     candidates for early NATO membership when the Alliance 
     decides to move forward. At this stage, however, writing into 
     law a narrow list of countries eligible for special 
     assistance could reduce our ability to work with other 
     emerging democracies that are also making significant 
     progress but may not be immediately eligible for 
     assistance under the NATO Participation Act.
       I firmly believe that my comprehensive strategy is the best 
     means for carrying NATO's enlargement process through to a 
     successful conclusion. Proof that it is working can be seen 
     in the significant improvement in the ability of some partner 
     forces to undertake joint missions with NATO, including in 
     IFOR. Our clear sense is that the eleven partners 
     participating in the second phase of the enlargement process 
     understand and support our policy of steady, deliberate 
     progress toward enlargement and in no way feel ``abandoned by 
     the West'' or are considering ``departing from the path of 
     reform,'' as you suggest. On the contrary, they are actively 
     and enthusiastically engaged in the second phase of the 
     enlargement process, which, as I noted earlier, will 
     culminate in decisions by NATO Foreign Ministers in December 
     on important next steps in the process.
       My Administration is committed to continued close 
     cooperation with you. I welcome your efforts to build 
     bipartisan Congressional support both for the continuing 
     engagement of the United States in Europe and for this 
     Administration's commitment to bringing new members into the 
     Alliance. Secretary Christopher echoed my own sentiments when 
     he said in Prague that we are determined to keep faith with 
     the nations of this region and to open the door that Stalin 
     shut when he said no to the Marshall Plan. No European nation 
     should ever again be forced to occupy a buffer zone between 
     great powers or be abandoned to the sphere of influence of 
     another.
       We look forward to working you on this historic task.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  It was only after I received this letter from the President that I 
introduced the measure that is before us today. This measure finally 
implements the NATO Participation Act, and I am gratified that the 
administration has, upon careful reflection, decided not to oppose this 
legislation. I continue to believe, however, that enactment of this 
legislation is essential if we wish to keep the pressure on the 
administration for prompt NATO enlargement.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3564.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of H.R. 3564.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Gilman for his leadership in bringing 
this bill to the House floor.
  This bill helps us to begin the debate on what will become one of the 
most important foreign policy issues facing the United States--the 
question of NATO enlargement. Are we prepared to commit American lives 
and treasure to defend new NATO countries? I am impressed with how 
casually we are considering this issue. I am afraid that this bill is 
driven by domestic politics more than it should be.
  But, I appreciate Chairman Gilman's efforts to put this important 
issue before us.
  At the outset I want to make clear what this bill does and does not 
do.
  This bill takes two basic steps: It finds that three countries--
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--have made the most progress 
toward achieving the criteria of NATO membership; and makes these three 
countries eligible for up to $60 million in military assistance--
grants, loans, and training--to help them in the enlargement process.
  Just as significant is what this bill does not do: It does not 
prejudice U.S. or NATO policy by stating that any specific country 
should be admitted to NATO; it establishes no date certain for the 
entry of new members into NATO.
  This bill is a distinct improvement over H.R. 7, considered by the 
House in early 1995, as well as other efforts to dictate the nature and 
the timetable of NATO enlargement.
  There is some common ground between the administration and the 
sponsors of this bill.
  The administration agrees that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic have made more progress than others toward NATO membership.
  The administration supports the authorization of military assistance 
to help these countries prepare for NATO membership.
  The only differences are technical. The administration opposes 
earmarking assistance for these countries through the NATO 
Participation Act, which undercuts flexibility in the use of assistance 
funds intended for a wider range of Partnership for Peace countries.
  I intend to vote for this bill for three reasons.
  First, this bill supports current U.S. policy: enlarging NATO will 
help integrate the democratic nations of Central and Eastern Europe 
into the Western family of nations.
  Second, this bill highlights that NATO enlargement is a gradual and 
deliberate process. That process will evolve over several months and 
years: A NATO meeting in December 1996, will prepare the way for a NATO 
summit in 1997, at which certain countries will be named and accession 
talks begin; accession talks will likely take a year or two; and NATO 
governments must then approve, by consensus, the accession agreements; 
all 16 NATO governments must then ratify those agreements, which will 
require parliamentary approval.
  So, as a practical matter, the actual enlargement of NATO is several 
years down the road. That is the prudent course.
  Third, this bill contains several important findings on NATO 
enlargement: It states that NATO membership is not a free ride; that 
prospective members must be able to contribute to the security of the 
North Atlantic area and assume the costs and responsibilities of NATO 
membership; it sets out that enlargements will require agreement of all 
16 NATO states; it notes the important role of Partnership for Peace in 
the enlargement process and in fostering cooperation between NATO and 
the states of Central Europe; and it states that lasting security and 
stability in Europe requires not just military steps but economic and 
political integration, especially the integration of Central and East 
Europe into the European Union.

  I intend to vote for this bill, but I have many questions about NATO 
enlargement, and I want to state them briefly:

[[Page H8120]]

  I have no doubt that NATO enlargement will advance the interests of 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, but how will it advance United 
States interests?
  Why is NATO enlargement necessary, when the threat to peace and 
security in Central and Eastern Europe has never been less?
  Will NATO enlargement increase stability and security if NATO admits 
some countries--but not others countries--in Central and Eastern 
Europe? Or does it risk new lines of confrontation in Europe, 
especially if Russia believes that NATO enlargement is a new policy of 
containment?
  Are the American people prepared to undertake the financial and 
security obligations that NATO enlargement will entail?
  This bill may authorize a modest amount of funds, but we should not 
set a precedent where we pay countries to meet the conditions of NATO 
membership.
  Should we undertake these obligations? A Congressional Budget Office 
study estimates that NATO enlargement could cost $60 to $125 billion 
over a 15-year period, with the United States paying $5 to $19 billion.
  Are we ready to provide a United States nuclear guarantee, and commit 
American soldiers to the security of Slovakia or Slovenia?
  It is clear what NATO can do for new members--but what will they 
contribute to NATO? So far, we don't have good answers to many of these 
questions.
  I also share the administration's concerns about earmarking 
assistance, and undercutting flexibility to provide assistance to all 
Partnership for Peace countries.
  I would hope that some compromise on this issue is possible as the 
legislative process moves forward.
  Now, in the course of this debate, we will hear criticism that the 
administration is dragging its feet on NATO enlargement. That criticism 
is way off the mark. Whether you support or oppose NATO enlargement, 
let's be clear here: The administration is driving the train. The 
question of enlargement is a NATO's agenda only because the United 
States has made it such a high priority. Yet, any decision on 
enlargement must be by NATO consensus. The United States cannot dictate 
the outcome. Leadership is not the same as arm-twisting. A successful 
outcome on NATO enlargement will require the support of all NATO 
members.
  In conclusion, I see common ground between this bill and 
administration policy, other than on details of a funding mechanism. 
Both agree that three countries in Central and Eastern Europe have made 
the most progress toward NATO membership. Both agree that a modest 
amount of military assistance should be provided to them to help in 
this process. This bill is the first step in what I hope will be a full 
debate on the merits of NATO enlargement.
  I support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], the ranking minority member, for his supporting 
arguments on behalf of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific of our Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as original cosponsor of this legislation, 
and as a leader of this body's delegation to the North Atlantic 
Assembly, this Member rises in strong support of the NATO Enlargement 
Facilitation Act.
  This Member would commend the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
for his leadership in promoting this important national security 
legislation. In addition, this Member would pay tribute to the former 
majority leader of the other body, the distinguished former Senator 
from Kansas, Mr. Dole. It is clear that, were it not for the leadership 
of Senator Dole, we would not be considering this visionary legislation 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of confusion, both in this 
body as well as among the countries and interested parties in Eastern 
and Central Europe, about what this legislation really does. In order 
to produce or eliminate any confusion, this Member would like to take a 
moment and attempt to succinctly explain what this legislation will do 
and what it will not do.
  First, contrary to what has frequently been said, this legislation 
would not admit new countries into NATO; that is something that can be 
done only with the parliamentary concurrence of all 16 Members of NATO. 
The legislation does, however, take appropriate note of the three 
Central European countries Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, 
which have made the greatest strides toward qualifying for NATO 
membership. For these nations, the legislation sets forth a modest 
training and assistance package to help them acquire some of the 
infrastructure items that are essential for NATO membership, for 
example, air defense radars, and telecommunications infrastructure.

                              {time}  1130

  The legislation also recognizes that there are other Central European 
nations which have taken positive steps for Partnership for Peace. That 
is true of Eastern European nations as well. These countries may at 
some future date also be qualified for NATO membership.
  Second, this legislation does not establish new ideological or 
strategic lines or boundaries across Europe. The nations of Eastern and 
Central Europe, particularly those which are not cited in the first 
tier of eligibility, are understandably worried that they would have 
the option of NATO membership permanently closed to them. Some nations 
fear that they will be caught on the wrong side of a new Iron Curtain, 
forever excluded from the closer cooperation with the West.
  H.R. 3564 does not set those rigid boundaries. The lessons of Yalta 
must not be forgotten. We fully recognize that NATO is likely to 
continue to enlarge in the future, but only when aspiring members are 
able to fulfill the conditions of membership and capable of 
contributing to the common defense.
  Third, H.R. 3564 is not an open-ended promise of eventual NATO 
membership to interested Eastern and to Central European nations. The 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a social club or paper 
organization; rather it is the most successful collective defensive 
organization in the history of mankind. It is perhaps inevitable that 
some nations, which have expressed an interest in NATO, may fail to 
meet the basic criteria for membership, but this is in part also 
somewhat of a self-qualification process.
  The nations which have adopted free markets and adopted a full range 
of truly democratic institutions and practices will be more likely to 
be considered for membership. Those countries which fail to liberalize 
their economies or fail to become real democracies or repress their 
citizens are unlikely to enter NATO.
  In addition, of course, NATO membership will only be offered to those 
nations which are willing to assume the shared cost and defense 
responsibilities of the alliance.
  Last, this legislation should not be seen to threaten Russia or any 
other nation. The NATO alliance remains a defensive alliance. The 
Russian leadership must understand that NATO will not launch unprovoked 
attacks against a peaceful neighbor. The far more serious threat to 
Russian interest is internal instability and instability along her 
borders.

  It is desperately important for the Russian people that its 
government complete fundamental economic and political reforms, but 
these reforms will be impossible if it is constantly threatened with 
civil war and political instability along its borders. Thus, the 
stability that NATO can project into Central and Eastern Europe should 
be helpful to Russian economic modernization and to its political 
stability.
  Mr. Speaker, it most assuredly is true that the nature of some of the 
security challenges which face the NATO alliance have fundamentally 
changed since the days of the cold war. At that earlier time, defending 
Europe from Soviet or Warsaw Pact attack was

[[Page H8121]]

NATO's paramount mission. Now projecting stability and democracy 
eastward is perhaps the most important function that the alliance can 
serve.
  Where once the Warsaw Pact enforced an involuntary order, now in too 
many places there is merely a power vacuum. No one wants to return to a 
time when border conflicts, aggressive nationalism, ethnic divisions, 
and political intrigue was the norm in Eastern and Central Europe.
  But it is clear that could well reemerge unless stability is 
projected into the region. It should be obvious that NATO is the best 
instrument to fill that power vacuum, and it can do so in a 
nonthreatening manner.
  Mr. Speaker, as the body completes consideration of the NATO 
Enlargement Act, this Member would remind his colleagues that we are 
considering very serious future treaty commitments. As this Member 
already has noted, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most 
successful defensive alliance in the history of the world. Its success 
is anchored in the article 5 commitment North Atlantic Treaty, which 
states that an attack against one is an attack against all. Members 
must acknowledge that the admission of a new nation to NATO means that 
this nation will go to war to defend that country. Thus, this Congress 
should voice its support for NATO expansion in the months and years 
ahead only after careful consideration, and only if specific expansions 
are in the U.S. national interest. By passage of this act, we are 
moving forward to facing these future decisions on countries which can 
better prepare themselves to take on the full responsibilities of NATO 
membership.
  This Member believes it is indeed in the national interest to expand 
NATO for those nations which meet all the criteria for membership. A 
carefully crafted policy of NATO enlargement can project stability into 
a volatile region of the world without drawing new boundaries, and it 
can do so in a way that should not undermine stability in Russia. By 
providing basic assistance through H.R. 3564 to those nations which 
have thus far made the greatest progress toward fulfilling the criteria 
for membership in a defensive alliance among the democratic nations of 
North America and Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether NATO will expand, but 
when it will expand. Clearly, the enactment of H.R. 3564 will speed the 
day when NATO expands in a responsible, stabilizing manner. This Member 
urges adoption of H.R. 3564.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend both the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, and the gentleman from New 
York, Chairman Gilman, for the action today.
  My father was in the Polish army in the late 1930's, 1939, as the war 
broke out. Poland, like Czechoslovakia first, saw both the Germans and 
the Russians coming in and divide them. Then the Russians were pushed 
back. The Germans took all of Poland. My father's entire family was 
exterminated. The the Russians came in and took over, and the dark days 
in Poland continued.
  Czechoslovakia, of course, was Hitler's first grab with the Sudeten. 
Then again, as the Germans were pushed back, the Russians took it and 
imposed their terror on the Czech people for many years.
  I think this legislation comes at the right time. There could have 
been a debate prior to the election in the Soviet Union. We could have 
argued at that point that, while the election was going on, we should 
be a little cautions in doing anything that would impact the outcome. 
The Soviet election, the Russian election is over. These countries, 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, are moving in the right 
direction. If we needed to learn anything from history, it is that, 
when we have the opportunity to put peace in place, we ought to take 
that opportunity.
  We have seen sufficient turmoil in the post-Soviet era to understand 
that, just because the Soviet Union has come to an end, does not mean 
that we are guaranteed peace on the European continent. The worst 
horrors we have seen in Europe in the last 50 years occurred after the 
fall of the Soviet Union in the former country of Yugoslavia as it 
disintegrated.
  I think this action will ensure stability. We need to work with the 
Russians and others in the region to make sure that they understand 
this is not a move to threaten anybody's sovereignty or security. This 
is a move that hopefully will use the power and the strength of the 
West to ensure stability in Eastern Europe and help build not just a 
secure Eastern Europe but a more prosperous former Soviet bloc and that 
goes as well for the Russians.
  These people in particular, the Poles, the Hungarians, and the 
Czechs, have suffered significantly throughout this century. This will 
give them some of the security that they rightly demand.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the chairman of 
the Republican Policy Committee.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  The collapse of the Soviet empire is the most significant 
geopolitical event of the second half of the 20th century. It marks an 
enormous victory in the global struggle for freedom. Its direct 
beneficiaries are the liberated peoples of Europe and Asia that 
comprise the former captive nations so long dominated by the Warsaw 
Pact.
  Unlike NATO, which was organized to protect and defend its members 
from Soviet expansionism, the Warsaw Pact subjugated its own member 
states, as we saw when Warsaw Pact troops invaded Hungary and 
Czechoslovakia to depose their governments and snuff out the people's 
freedom.
  The captive nations, whose people fought and struggled against 
communism for so many dark years, deserve membership in NATO more than 
any other people on earth. NATO membership will accelerate the growth 
of their democracies and the pace of their economic reforms, and it 
will make our own world more secure. History demonstrates that 
democracies and free people do not threaten their neighbors.
  This legislation is necessary now because action by the Clinton 
administration is long overdue, because the window of opportunity will 
not remain open forever. It has been 5 long years since the collapse of 
the Soviet empire. Let us begin this process now, in Poland, Hungary, 
and the Czech Republic, and let us work with the Baltic nations and the 
other former captive nations of central and economic Europe to expand 
the family of democracies and the respecters and promoters of free 
enterprise on our planet so that our world will indeed soon be a safer 
place.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I know that I am chasing 
windmills when it comes to this particular bill because it has a degree 
of unanimity in this body, the State Department and the President. But, 
probably for cathartic reasons, I must oppose the bill.
  For the past 36 months, I have heard a chorus from this body, both 
Democrats and Republicans, that we must cut foreign aid and foreign 
assistance, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is the 
lowest per capita contributor of foreign aid of all of the 
industrialized countries in the world. I have also heard from this 
podium that no American troops should be sent to Somalia, Rwanda, 
Haiti, or Bosnia.
  How many times have you heard that the United States cannot be the 
policeman of the world?
  Well, how many of you have read this bill? How many of you have read 
the NATO Charter? How many of you have any idea what the expansion of 
our military obligation will be when we expand NATO? Do you have any 
idea of the cost of equipping these armies to bring them up to NATO 
standards? You're talking about billions of dollars. The Marshall plan 
will look like petty cash compared to this expansion.
  Let me read from Congressional Research Service:

       A Rand study concluded that a conservative estimate of NATO 
     expansion to include the Visegrad States, (that's Hungary, 
     Poland, and the Czech Republic) will require ten to fifty 
     billion dollars over 10 years, or as much as one hundred 
     billion dollars or more should more vigorous measures be 
     necessary to develop a strong defense posture.

  In March 1996 CBO issued a report assessing cost of NATO enlargement 
under five possible options ranging from assisting a new member engaged 
in a border skirmish, or a conflict with a regional power to the 
permanent stationing of forces and equipment of current member states 
on the territory of

[[Page H8122]]

new members to prepare for a border conflict. The study assumed that 
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia would be the initial 
new members and would bear the brunt of the cost of military 
modernization; that the cost would be spread over 1996-2010 and that 
current allies would pay a percentage of modernization cost equal to 
their proportionate share in NATO's Security Investment Program.
  In such circumstances, cost at the low end for option 1 would be $60 
billion with the United States share being $4.8 billion, and at the 
high end, $125 billion with the United States share being $18.9 
billion.

  Once you start the expansion--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Repubic--politically, you cannot stop. In this bill you encourage 
admission to NATO of the Baltic countries--Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania--to one previous Yugoslavian country, Slovenia, and the most 
insulting and offensive to the Russians, two former Soviet Union 
countries, Muldova and Ukraine.
  Are you willing now to commit American soldiers to a border dispute 
between Lithuania and Russia over the enclave of Kaliningrad? Are you 
willing to send troops to Latvia because they have a fight with 
Belarus? Are you willing to send troops to Ukraine because of a 
conflict with Russia over the Black Sea fleet and Crimea? Think about 
it.
  Let me make it perfectly clear. I am not an isolationist. Serving on 
the Foreign Affairs Committee for 8 years has given me a global view. I 
wanted to send troops into Rwanda long before the slaughter there. 
Serving on the Committee on International Relations has given me a 
global view. But how can you give a blank check to the white Eastern 
European nations and totally abandon black Africa?
  This is a major step and one that should not be taken lightly.
  I leave Congress in 5 months but I plan to come back and haunt you on 
a yearly basis.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  No one is contemplating early NATO membership for Ukraine or Belarus, 
perhaps not ever. And, indeed, we are willing to use American military 
force when it is in the vital interest of the United States. Clearly, 
instability in Central and Eastern Europe would be contrary to the 
vital interests of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], my good friend, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Gilman for his leadership in ensuring 
the timely consideration of H.R. 3564, the NATO Enlargement 
Facilitation Act of 1996. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, 
a strong advocate of NATO enlargement, and Chairman of the Helsinki 
Commission, I have consistently emphasized the importance of human 
rights in the expansion process. In addition, I am keenly interested in 
encouraging states interested in NATO membership to take concrete steps 
to strengthen civilian democratic control of the military.
  During the International Relations Committee's consideration of this 
important initiative, language which proposed on each of these aspects 
of enlargement was approved with the Chairman Gilman's support, for 
which I am grateful.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today includes an 
unqualified statement that the protection and promotion of fundamental 
freedoms and human rights are integral aspects of genuine security. The 
legislation also makes clear that the human rights records of emerging 
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe interested in joining NATO 
should be evaluated in light of the obligations and commitments of 
these countries under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act. I would note that all 27 
states of the Partnership for Peace [PfP] are participating States of 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. That 
membership has committed each to act in accordance with all OSCE 
documents, including the Helsinki Final Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the enlargement process provides an excellent 
opportunity for countries desiring membership to demonstrate their 
commitment to the shared values of NATO--including respect for human 
rights--as well as their ability to fulfill the military and political 
obligations expected of all member states. Prospective members should 
meet the criteria set forth in the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and 
other relevant legislation before they are admitted as full members of 
NATO.
  It is also important to recognize that the present process of 
enlargement is taking place under significantly different circumstances 
that existed when a limited number of states were added in the past. 
Given the growing number of countries actively seeking full membership 
in the alliance, it is essential to establish clear criteria which all 
new members must meet.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent days there has been some discussion about 
including Croatia among the prospective recipients of assistance under 
this legislation. To set the record straight, nothing in the pending 
legislation precludes Croatia from receiving assistance provided that 
country--or any other prospective recipient--meets a series of 
criteria, including respect for human rights. I welcome the recent 
decision of the OSCE to deploy a mission to Croatia and look forward to 
the findings and recommendations of that group which could contribute 
to establishing the conditions necessary for Zegreb to pursue eventual 
membership in NATO. In the meantime, Croatia should press for inclusion 
in the PfP, widely viewed as the first step toward possible NATO 
membership.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn briefly to the issue of civilian 
democratic control of the military. At the outset, let me say that the 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe have made tremendous strides in 
overcoming the legacy of communism. Perhaps one of the most delicate 
aspects of this transition has been establishing civilian control of 
the military an important prerequisite for those wishing to join NATO. 
Significant progress has been made in the emerging democracies leading 
to increased transparency with respect to military activities and 
budgets. Another key component, in my view, is the naming of a civilian 
to serve as minister of defense. Beyond mere symbolism, this action 
underscores the willingness of the military to subordinate itself to 
the democratic civilian leadership--a fundamental aspect of democratic 
society. I applaud those countries which have already undertaken this 
important step and encourage others to pursue that course.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation as a demonstration of our determination to move NATO 
expansion forward and our commitment to the people of East Central 
Europe, including those from the Baltic States and Ukraine, as they 
strive to overcome the legacy of communism and pursue democracy firmly 
rooted in respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Oberstar] is recognized for 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation for the reasons already 
explained. Because it is important, I regret that it does not go a step 
further and include, along with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, 
Slovenia.
  Let me explain why. With only 8 percent of the population of former 
Yugoslavia, Slovenia accounted for 19 percent of the country's gross 
domestic product, one-third of its exports, one half of its dairy 
production, 40 percent of all of its taxes.
  The Slovenes, post election, have been a model of parliamentary 
democracy. Local government has been expanded; 158 new municipalities 
have been created, local elections held. They have received the highest 
human rights respect status awarded by Amnesty International.

[[Page H8123]]

  Inflation in the postwar, and it was only a 9-day war imposed by the 
Serb Army, only 68 people died, the Slovenes let the Serb Army return 
to its land without killing anyone, inflation was at 1,200 percent. It 
is now down to under 9 percent. They have a $3 billion positive 
international balance of payments. They have the 20th largest per 
capita exporting country record.

  Ninety percent of the former socialist economy has been privatized. 
The banks have been privatized. They have balanced their budget. 
Unemployment rate is down to around 7 percent. Slovenia, in short, is 
Europe's best kept democratic secret.
  When our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, was in Slovenia recently, 
he said, Slovenia has done very well in all standards for NATO 
membership and is a strong candidate. Slovenia, he continued, can be a 
model to other Eastern Bloc and Central European countries because of 
its successful implementation of a democratic government, market 
economy, and resolving disagreements with its neighbors.
  I have discussed this matter with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] and with our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton]. I appreciate their willingness to give consideration to 
Slovenia at an appropriate time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman that we have 
reviewed Slovenia's progress and recognize it has made a significant 
amount of progress. I want to assure the gentleman that in the 
forthcoming session, providing we are all here, we will work toward 
trying to allow Slovenia to become a member of NATO.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the chairman's 
interest, understanding and support for this initiative.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, Slovenia has made remarkable progress. We 
recognize that. Their emergence has been so recent it did not receive 
full consideration.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] a member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 3564, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, authored by 
Chairman Gilman and Senator Dole.
  One of America's most solemn obligations is to foster the growth of 
democracy and freedom both at home and abroad. These goals have been 
constants in American foreign policy since our Nation's birth--there 
are no two goals more clearly in our national interest and consistent 
with our national ideals. As Americans, we were all elated when the 
Communist chokehold on Eastern Europe was lifted and the cold war was 
won. Now we must do everything possible to encourage and protect the 
fragile young democracies which are emerging in Eastern Europe.
  This legislation ensures that the emerging democracies will remain 
vital forces for freedom in Eastern Europe. This bill welcomes these 
nations as allies by facilitating the entrance of Poland, Hungary, and 
the Czech Republic into NATO and also by providing assistance toward 
NATO membership for Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, 
Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gilman for his outstanding leadership 
and urge my colleagues to support this visionary legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine that less than a decade ago, 
the world was a very different place.
  We were in the icy grip of the cold war.
  The Soviet Union was the menacing patron of repression across the 
globe.
  The winds of democracy and freedom had not yet begun to sweep over 
Eastern and Central Europe.
  All that has now changed.
  And with this change, we should change NATO.
  The bill before us recognizes that three Eastern European countries--
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--have made the most progress 
with the criteria necessary for NATO inclusion.
  As the Representative of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, one of the largest and 
most dynamic communities of Polish-Americans in the Nation, I am 
particularly pleased that this bill acknowledges Poland's extraordinary 
transition to democracy.
  The bill also authorizes up to $60 million to these countries to 
facilitate the NATO expansion process.
  It is critical that we recognize Poland's strategic value to the 
West.
  The admission of Poland into NATO will enhance United States 
interests in Europe by bringing more stability and security to the 
region.
  I urge the adoption of the bill, and I urge the administration to 
work with our allies to bring about the swift admission of Poland into 
Europe's most important political and military institution--NATO.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NATO Enlargement Act of 
1996. NATO, for the past 45 years, has been the cornerstone of 
stability in Europe and a critical element of our Nation's defense, it 
is the bulwark of Western democracy and free-market economics. The 
success of the alliance is without question.
  But while I support expansion of NATO to include nations of Central 
and Eastern Europe, it is my unshakable conviction that NATO membership 
must only be granted to nations that make a fundamental commitment to 
democracy, the rule of law, and free market economics.
  NATO membership must not be granted willy-nilly to nations that fail 
to make these commitments. Membership cannot be granted simply because 
certain nations fear their neighbors or believe that membership will 
enhance their prospects for democratic or economic progress or reform.
  A major reason for the alliance's success has been its intolerance of 
authoritarian or undemocratic regimes within its ranks. Although 
democratic governments were overthrown by military juntas in Greece and 
Turkey, both countries joined NATO as democracies and both countries 
have reverted to democratic governments. Spain was not permitted to 
join NATO until it demonstrated its commitment to parliamentary 
democracy.
  It also must be recognized that NATO is not anti-Russian. It is not 
even anti-Communist per se. In fact, it is not intrinsically anti 
anything. Rather, it is prodemocracy. NATO is and it always has been a 
defensive alliance under which the protection of democracies and free 
market economies could flourish.
  Some formerly Communist nations of Central and Eastern Europe, such 
as the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, have 
clearly made the transition to free market democracies and should soon 
easily qualify to join NATO, as this bill calls for.
  In addition, the early inclusion of those nations will also be a very 
powerful example and an incentive to encourage other Eastern European 
nations, such as Romania, Ukraine, Slovenia, and the Republic of 
Slovakia to hasten their unchangeable commitment to democratic 
institutions.
  NATO membership by these newly democratic nations will help secure 
their place among the Central and Western European states. The 
stability and fate of those nations are of vital importance to the 
peace and security of Europe.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to express some reservations. I commend 
the leadership on both sides for what they are trying to do. Eventually 
these

[[Page H8124]]

countries ought to be part of NATO, no matter what Russia thinks.
  However, I have some reservations. First, Poland. In Poland I wish 
Lech Walesa was still the head. In Poland a former leading member of 
the Polish Communist government is not the new prime minister. In 
Hungary, foreign investors are concerned that socialism is coming back, 
and many people who were Communists when we knew they were Communists 
are now back in the government.
  In Bulgaria, there are many Communists that have come back in 
government and, hopefully, the democratic leaning party will win in the 
upcoming election. In Romania, many of the same people that were in the 
Ceausescu government are still part of the government. So I am 
concerned about this.
  Also I think if this does pass that we should lay the word down that 
we expect all of these countries to respect human rights: freedom of 
religion, freedom of worship, no antisemitism, freedom of movement, and 
freedom of expression. I am concerned that perhaps we should wait and 
hold out a little longer on NATO expansion to make sure these countries 
really do join democracy, whereby they become eligible for NATO.
  So I commend the gentlemen on both sides but I want to raise some 
concerns. If communism comes back, these countries ought not be part of 
NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern about H.R. 3564, the NATO 
Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996. I have some serious reservations 
about expanding this critical alliance at this time. Things are still 
too uncertain in the newly democratic countries in Eastern and Central 
Europe.
  I support the concept of NATO expansion, but I think it's too early 
to be changing the formula that has worked to preserve peace in Western 
Europe for so long. More time need to pass to give these new 
governments a chance to show that they are truly committed to 
democracy, human rights, and being the kind of government necessary to 
be a trustworthy partner in NATO.
  I am encouraged by the progress I have seen since 1989. Some 
countries are doing better than others, but for the most part we do not 
see today the kinds of human rights abuses we saw in the pre-1989 ear. 
Elections have taken place. Good constitutions have been put in place. 
Rule-of-law is advancing. Individual freedoms--such as freedom of 
expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association--are being 
preserved. But, I agree with the words of University of Illinois 
professor Ed Kolodziej, as reported on June 18 in an article in the 
Christian Science Monitor, ``I don't think [these countries] are ripe 
by a long shot.''
  I am deeply concerned that in many countries in Eastern and Central 
Europe, former communists are in some capacity in government. In 
Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria former members of the Communist 
party are in charge. In other countries, they are still politically 
active. Some of them are reformed Communists; some of them are not. It 
is crucial that we let enough time pass to be able to determine who is 
who. Actions speak louder than words. We must be able to differentiate 
clearly between those who are truly committed to democracy and those 
who are only talking the talk before we commit to protect them.
  Things are better, but they are not perfect. I have heard reports 
that Hungarian Government representatives, at a conference in Budapest 
during the first week of July, adopted a provocative declaration on the 
status of Hungarians abroad causing concern for its neighbors. While I 
remain concerned over the state of Hungarian minority communities in 
Europe, this declaration illustrated a regrettable insensitivity toward 
Hungary's neighbors. There are still reports that high-profile 
individuals, journalists and foreigners are subject to surveillance by 
security agents in Romania.
  When new countries join NATO, they are full-fledged partners. They 
are entitled to all of our military secrets and the full protection of 
the United States. I just do not think that the American people are 
ready for new commitments overseas when we can barely get support for 
current ones. We currently have 22,000 American troops doing a great 
job bringing peace to Bosnia, but I know this is not a popular idea 
with the American people. Would there be the support to send troops to 
Poland or Hungary or Romania to help governments with former Communists 
in power?
  I don't think so. Not right now. Not before democracy has been tested 
and tried in Central and Eastern Europe and Communists no longer have 
influence.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of NATO expansion, but I don't 
think we should do it now. It's too early.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I think many of my colleagues know my philosophy about Members of 
Congress involving themselves in foreign affairs to the extent that we 
try to dictate policy. But it is my understanding of this bill that we 
are not dictating policy. We are strongly suggesting to NATO and to the 
administration that they encourage the acceptance of three countries 
and that they expand NATO.
  I might say that there is an avenue now through the Partnership for 
Peace where NATO can be expanded. But I think it is high time, like 
some of you, that we do expand NATO, that we do expedite the process, 
because a lot of countries have been waiting a lot of time in order to 
be included in there.
  It is my personal philosophy that we ought to include all nations 
over there, because if you are going to have a successful NATO, it 
simply says that one of these nations will not attack another. If it 
does take place, then those nations that are a part of NATO will defend 
it. So if all of them were included, it would seem to me that we would 
have the best of all worlds. But we must begin with the process.
  The NATO people must recognize that this process should start. It 
should have started a lot sooner than that. So we are not dictating to 
the administration. We are not dictating to NATO. We are simply saying 
that it is time to move on, that these three nations, specifically 
mentioned in here as suggestions, have been waiting a long time, that 
their acceptance would be an enhancement. I would encourage my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this measure.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments gives us an 
opportunity to recognize that we are not barring membership for any 
country through this resolution, but we are providing an infrastructure 
and training assistance program, a modest one, by authorizing it as a 
part of this proposed act.
  I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to remind our colleagues 
that we are not dictating NATO membership for any country, only 
facilitating assistance to these three countries that seem to have done 
an outstanding job in preparing for NATO membership. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding to me.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from New York 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, in concluding our debate today I would like 
to note that support for this measure has grown rapidly since we first 
introduced it several months ago. We now have 37 co-sponsors, almost 
evenly divided between Members of the majority and the minority. The 
bill has been warmly endorsed by the coalitions representing the 23 
million Americans of Central and Eastern European descent. They wrote 
to me stating that from their point of view this is the most important 
legislation we will consider this year.
  And finally just this morning we received word that the 
administration has decided to show its support behind the bill. The 
administration states, and I quote: ``The administration welcomes 
congressional support for the enlargement of NATO as reflected in H.R. 
3564.''
  Accordingly, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look 
forward to early approval of the measure.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguised chairman, the

[[Page H8125]]

gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for yielding to me. Earlier 
Croatia was mentioned as a possible addition to the names of the 
countries that might eventually qualify for the assistance program we 
are authorizing by this resolutions when they moved to a greater degree 
of democracy and respect for human rights. That certainly is possible. 
Slovenia was also mentioned as a country that ought to be considered, 
and I fully agree that it ought to be considered for the assistance 
program.
  Something that has not been mentioned is the recent improvements in 
democracy, economic reform, and human rights that has taken place in 
that nation which was formerly part of Yugoslavia, now called the 
Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia [FYROM]. Its progress and 
potential for advancement into the front ranks for consideration for 
NATO membership are also to be recognized.
  I thank the gentleman for recognizing me for this purpose.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the NATO 
Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, H.R. 3564.
  This legislation reflects strong bipartisan support in the U.S. 
Congress for welcoming the new democracies of Eastern and Central 
Europe into NATO when they are prepared to meet the responsibilities of 
membership. And it authorizes necessary assistance to help these new 
democracies prepare for NATO membership.
  As cochairman of the Baltic freedom caucus in Congress, I 
particularly commend to my colleagues the provisions of H.R. 3564 
relating to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. H.R. 3564 states that it is 
the sense of Congress that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have valid 
historical security concerns that must be taken into account by the 
United States, and the Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia should not be 
disadvantaged in seeking to join NATO by virtue of their forcible 
incorporation into the Soviet Union. H.R. 3564 also names Lithuania, 
Lativa, and Estonia as countries which should participate in the 
Regional Airspace Initiative and the Partnership for Peace Information 
Management System.
  The fledgling Baltic democracies, still struggling to overcome the 
effects of 50 years of communist domination, have made great efforts to 
prepare themselves for NATO membership. They are reforming their armies 
and instituting civilian controls and Democratic values. They have 
proven their ability to cooperate in multilateral efforts through the 
Baltic battalion. They have participated in Partnership For Peace 
training exercises. And they have contributed troops to the NATO-led 
operation in Bosnia, where they have earned the respect of their NATO 
allies and suffered in loss of their young soldiers.
  U.S. policy in Eastern and Central Europe should be based on two 
goals: First, to support the security of the new democracies in the 
Baltics, Eastern and Central Europe; and second, to create a climate of 
trust in our relations with Russia, so it understands that the West has 
no hostile intentions toward Russia's territory or its people.
  Expanding NATO membership at the appropriate time will enhance U.S. 
security, and strengthen democracy and free market reforms throughout 
Central and Eastern Europe. An expanded NATO, carefully crafted, can 
secure the peace for generations to come.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 3564, I urge my colleagues to support and pass 
the NATO Facilitation Act of 1996.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3564, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             general leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the subject of the measure just considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, is it still appropriate for a request for 
the yeas and nays to be ordered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to a demand for the yeas 
and nays?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________