[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5798-H5804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1119, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 1998 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for
the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Dellums
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dellums moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1119 be
instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in section
1207 of the House bill relating to limitation on payments for
cost of NATO expansion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will each be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During the House's deliberation on the bill, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1119,
the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, the House
adopted an amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. That amendment now embodies
the provisions contained in section 1207 of the bill.
Very briefly, let me describe that amendment and now the provisions
of section 1207. It would place a limit on U.S. costs for handling the
expansion of NATO to 10 percent of the total cost, or $2 billion,
whichever is lesser, for fiscal years 1998 through 2010.
With respect to background, Mr. Speaker, Congress, the House
especially, has for a long time expressed concern regarding the
relative shares of meeting the burden of providing European and
transatlantic security. It has passed provisions on several occasions
to secure increases in European support for U.S. troop nonpersonnel
costs, and has a provision, adopted again by overwhelming support on
the floor in the House version of the 1998 Defense authorization act,
the Frank amendment that I have alluded to earlier.
With NATO expansion looming on the horizon, concern exists regarding
the understanding of both the scale of the costs associated with
expansion and the distribution of those costs across new and current
members of NATO, including the United States.
Let me quickly reiterate, Mr. Speaker, arguments in support of the
provisions contained in section 1207, the subject of this motion to
recommit conferees.
First, the United States provides disproportionate support for NATO
in many capacities, making available naval forces as well as
communications, transportation, and logistics capabilities, and
strategic nuclear forces. As a result, it pays a substantially larger
portion of its GDP on its military account than our European allies.
Second, several of our European allies are wealthy nations and can
contribute more to the burdens of the alliance than they currently do.
Third, new members of NATO should be expected to contribute along the
terms of existing members, and should not be admitted without the
capabilities to contribute across the panorama of dimensions, that
would include financial, military, political, and foreign policy, of
current members of the alliance.
Fourth, the amounts contained in the amendment do indeed reflect the
administration's current estimates of the probable U.S. share. The
provisions contained in section 1207 would establish that in law for
the period through the year 2010, after which a review can be made of
the continuing appropriateness of that level of commitment or
restraint.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, legislative initiatives have in the past
provided important leverage, as it were, to the U.S. Government in
negotiations with NATO partners on burdensharing arrangements.
Mr. Speaker, with those opening and explanatory remarks, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the distinguished ranking
member of the committee. This motion expresses support for section 1207
of H.R. 1119, a provision offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] that would ensure that the United States' share of the
costs associated with the proposed expansion of NATO does not exceed
the administration's projected estimates.
While I believe we want to closely examine the precise wording of
this provision, I support its intent, as it addresses a very important
aspect of the administration's NATO expansion policy: How much will
this policy cost, and who will pick up the cost?
On this point, a recent letter from President Clinton to the
committee states that ``all NATO members will share in the cost of NATO
enlargement, and the distribution of costs will be in accordance with
long-standing financial principles.''
However, at the recent NATO summit in Madrid, French President Chirac
declared, and I quote, ``France does not intend to raise its
contribution to NATO because of the cost of enlargement.'' At a
minimum, this development raises important questions that deserve
continued attention and scrutiny by the Congress.
[[Page H5799]]
Mr. Speaker, regardless of where one might stand on the broader
question of NATO expansion, I agree that the question of cost, how
much, who pays, and by when, should be of universal concern. Therefore,
I join the gentleman from California in supporting this motion, and
look forward to working with him and the Members on all sides of the
NATO expansion issue as we arrive at a proper statement of
congressional policy on questions of cost.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the
gentleman's remarks, the chairman of our Committee on National
Security.
Mr. Speaker, I took part in a NATO summit meeting. We certainly are
in support of NATO expansion, but I think burdensharing is an extremely
important aspect of all of this. We want to make certain that the
Congress and the American people fully understand what the burden of
costs will be with regard to NATO expansion.
I am pleased to rise with the gentleman in support of the amendment
of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues,
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman] for their support of this motion to instruct
conferees. It certainly gives this gentleman confidence that we will
stand firmly and strongly in the context of the conference to bring
this provision back.
I in a moment will yield to one of my distinguished colleagues from
Massachusetts, the author of the amendment that is now the subject
matter of section 1207, but I would first like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that over the years there have been several Members very keenly
interested in the issue of burdensharing. One of them who has loomed
large in the context of our deliberations here in the Congress on the
matter of burdensharing has been the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has been unwavering and unrelenting in
his concern about burdensharing.
I think it is a tribute to the gentleman that the Congress on more
than one occasion has embraced the wisdom of my distinguished
colleague, and that his work is now the subject matter of the motion to
recommit conferees today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am deeply grateful, Mr. Speaker, for
the ranking minority member's words of praise, because he is among the
most consistently thoughtful and serious Members of this body, and
praise from him in this area means a great deal to me.
I am also grateful to the two chairmen who have spoken, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], chairman
of the Committee on National Security.
It is appropriate that we be speaking out with virtual unanimity,
certainly great consensus. We are not here debating whether or not
America ought to join NATO. Indeed, in its specific form, that will not
come before us. It will come before the other body as a ratification of
a treaty. This House voted on a resolution, a sense of Congress, in
favor of the expansion of NATO. That is not at issue. There is a large
majority in favor, although some may have questions.
The issue is what is an equitable sharing of the costs. I think it is
important to note the history here. Fifty-two years ago, at the close
of World War II, this Nation undertook as generous an approach to
foreign nations as we have seen in the history of the world. From the
Marshall plan through a whole range of other activities, the people of
the United States went to the aid in particular of people in Europe who
had been devastated by the war, in what is really quite an
extraordinary example of national generosity and good sense. It was
done in a bipartisan way by President Truman and a Republican Congress
that came into power in 1946.
This country not only went to the aid of its former allies, but in
what is really an example of the importance of a generosity of spirit
and an appreciation of the value of reconciliation, we went to the aid
of our former enemies. This country by the late 1940's was a partner in
the rebuilding economically and politically of Germany and Japan.
Germany and Japan today and for decades have been functioning
democracies, and that is something about which we can be proud, our
part in having that reaction.
I say that because no one can accuse this country of a lack of
appreciation for international responsibilities when we say at this
point, dealing with allies that are our equals in wealth, that an
element of subsidy from us to them is no longer appropriate. That is
what this amendment says.
This amendment says that when it comes to the expansion of NATO,
which is, after all, primarily about Europe, although it is obviously
going to benefit us as well, the wealthy European nations, and this is
not an effort to impose more money on the Czech Republic or the people
of Hungary or the people of Poland, but we are talking here about our
wealthy European allies.
The chairman of the Committee on National Security correctly noted, I
believe, the quotation from President Chirac of France. Remember, the
French have two positions. One, more countries ought to be invited into
NATO; two, they should not contribute a franc to that.
{time} 1230
That is obviously an untenable position. I regard this as
strengthening the hands of the administration. The number we have here,
$2 billion, is the upper end of the range that the President has told
us this will cost. This is not an effort to force the administration to
do with less than they have asked for. The President has said over this
12-year period it will cost $1.5 to $2 billion. We say $2 billion.
We realize he has got to be negotiating with our allies, allies who
have refused to bear a common part of the burden, and questions have
legitimately been raised. Why is that important? It is important
because if they do too much or we get forced to do too much at the
expense of other things, we are about to adopt, not with my vote, but
it is going to be adopted, a budget agreement. It will very tightly
constrain for the next 5 years at least both domestic and international
spending, both military and civilian spending, the military spending
itself will be tight according to those in charge of it. And it cannot,
I think, sustain additional billions for NATO expansion without taking
away from important categories that we need to worry about. So this
simply takes the President at his word.
I would also point out two things: The chairman of the committee said
quite correctly that he, and I appreciated this, agreed in concept but
we would work on the wording. Of course, an instruction motion does not
tie the hands of our conferees. It does not require them to vote ad
infinitum for every word. It, I hope, will send them into negotiation
with the other body with a powerful statement that some concern about
cost has to be written in.
Second, what we are talking about people will say, suppose something
unforeseen comes up there 4 or 5 years from now. The answer under the
American Constitution is not that the President should have a blank
check to deal with that but where we are talking about the spending
power, the President should be required to return to the Congress of
the United States and say, this has happened. There is this emergency.
This threat has turned out to be worse than we thought. This expense is
greater than we thought. There has been a collapse in one of our allies
and we understand that they cannot bear the strain of that cost.
This House and the other body will certainly listen to that. This is
not an absolute forever limitation. It is saying to the administration,
this is what you say you need now and this is what we
[[Page H5800]]
are going to give you. If circumstances arise which should require
more, then under our Constitution you come back and ask because what we
fear, many of us, is that our allies will cheer us on, urge us to
expand to even more countries and continue the pattern of refusing to
cooperate.
I include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, an article which was published
in yesterday's Washington Post by two distinguished Republican Members
of the other body:
[From the Washington Post, July 24, 1997]
The Missing NATO Debate
(By John Warner and Kay Bailey Hutchison)
Going into the NATO summit in Madrid, conventional wisdom
had it that expanding the Alliance would be easy. We believe
this perception is changing with the realization of what
expansion will entail.
The plan--which would have Poland, the Czech Republic and
Hungary come under the American security umbrella in just two
years--seems to contradict the reality of declining defense
budgets and general post-Cold War retrenchment that is taking
place in all of the Western democracies. French President
Jacques Chirac admitted as much at the recent NATO summit in
Madrid, when he flatly declared that ``France does not intend
to raise its contribution to NATO because of the cost of
enlargement.''
One indication of this intensified scrutiny is the recent
letter from 20 senators to the president outlining those
areas that will be debated prior to NATO expansion.
Signatories include senators from every region of the country
and from across the political spectrum, from Jesse Helms (R-
N.C.) to Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.).
These members have differing views of NATO expansion, from
support to skepticism to outright opposition. But they share
one concern: The decision to enter into a mutual defense
treaty with three additional countries deserves more debate
and inspection than it has thus far received.
Under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, the members make a
commitment to treat an attack on one member as an attack on
all. Are the American people willing to make that same
commitment to the three countries in Central Europe being
identified for NATO membership, and possibly more in the
future? And at what price?
The cost of adding at least three members to NATO will
entail increased training for the new members, enhanced
command and control capabilities, communications and
intelligence-gathering improvements, upgrading of facilities
and the purchase of weapons that will bring the new members
up to NATO standards.
The wide variations in the estimates for these improvements
are of concern. The independent and respected Rand Corp. in
1995 fixed the cost of NATO expansion at $1 billion to $5
billion a year over 10 years, soaring as high as $10 billion
or more should a strong threat to NATO reemerge.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated
that expanding the alliance (to the three plus Slovakia)
would lead to U.S. costs ranging from $5 billion to $19
billion over 15 years. The CBO estimates the total cost of
expansion at as much as $125 billion. The cost to the United
States assumes, questionably, that the new members of the
alliance would increase their own defense spending by 60
percent over the same period.
In stark contrast to these staggering cost assessments are
the Clinton administration's rather modest estimates for
adding three to five unnamed members to the alliance. In a
February 1997 report to Congress, the administration
concluded that the cost to the United States over 12 years
would be just $150 million to $200 million a year, at best
only one-fifth of the next highest estimate from an
independent source. The same administration estimated the
costs of the current U.S. operation in Bosnia at less than $2
billion. The actual cost will be $6.5 billion through June
1998, with that withdrawal date now in question.
The administration's February report is further troubling
because of its assumptions about burden-sharing, or how much
of the total cost of NATO enlargement will be borne by our
European allies. According to the administration, the United
States will pay just 15 percent or so of the direct
enlargement costs. Other members will pay 50 percent, and the
new members 35 percent.
The recent statement by President Chirac would seem to call
this assumption into question. His statement is consistent
with the trends of the last several years. Despite cuts in
U.S. defense spending since the end of the Cold War, we still
spend nearly 4 percent of our total wealth (gross domestic
product) on defense. By comparison, France spends just 2.5
percent, Germany 1.5 percent and Poland 2.4 percent. It seems
unlikely that these current and future allies will pay
proportionately two or three times more than the United
States for the costs of NATO expansion when they spend just
half of what we do on general defense.
NATO expansion may well be a good idea, but the plan to
bring it about must be based on hard realities, not feel-good
perceptions. A heavy burden falls upon elected leaders to
make a convincing argument to the American people that
changes we make to the alliance are in our national interest
and will strengthen the organization.
I cite this because it is, I will tell the Parliamentarian, directly
relevant to the legislation under consideration. Under our rules we
cannot just idly comment on the other body, but we can talk about
things that are relevant. Two Members of the Senate, the Senator from
Virginia, who is a senior member of their Committee on Armed Services,
and the junior Senator from Texas have an interesting article about
this problem. They talk about, for instance, when they list what the
President of the United States has said this will cost us, the recent
statement by President Chirac of France would seem to call this
assumption into question.
His statement is consistent with the trends of the last several
years. Despite cuts in U.S. defense spending since the end of the cold
war, we still spend nearly 4 percent of our total wealth on defense. By
comparison France spends just 2.5 percent; Germany, 1.5 percent. It
seems unlikely that these current and future allies will pay two or
three times more than the United States for the cost of NATO expansion
when they spend just half of what we do on general defense.
There is one thing we can do about that. We can have this Congress
say, yes, the great majority here in this House voted to support the
concept of NATO expansion but not in a context in which the U.S.
taxpayer has to reduce our contribution. Remember, the European nations
have imposed on themselves, the leading NATO European nations are also
the leading nations in the European Union. They have impressed on
themselves the requirement that they get their budget deficits down to
3 percent of gross domestic product, far higher than ours. They are
under pressure to make cuts and their military budgets are going to be
cut.
Great Britain, another very important NATO member not in the EU
currency union, just announced, under the new government, that they
would be cutting defense. It is important for us to have a large vote
for this so that our administration understands and is strengthened in
negotiations with our allies and in insisting that the American
taxpayer not be given an open-ended budgetary problem with the
expansion of NATO.
Therefore, I am very grateful to my friend from California, my friend
from South Carolina, the gentleman from New York and the others who I
think are strengthening the hand of the U.S. Government in this
negotiation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank motion. Let me
stipulate, I am an internationalist. I for 10 years chaired the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations. In that capacity, I worked
with many Members in this institution in initiating and then expanding
American assistance to eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was deeply involved in ensuring
that we had major debt relief for Poland without which Poland would
not, in my view, have been able to make the transition from a captive
Communist country to a now economically thriving incipient democracy.
I believe deeply in engagement with countries around the world,
including those in Central Europe. But I think the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is absolutely correct. Uncle Sam cannot be
Uncle Sucker. I think frankly, while the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] said this debate is not about the expansion of NATO, I wish
it were because frankly we have never really had a debate in this
country about expansion of NATO. We have had a very lightly once over
discussion in this House last year encouraging the administration to
pursue the possibilities of expansion, something which no reasonable
Member could oppose; but I do not believe that the expansion of NATO
has occurred in the right way. I think that what the West has done and
the way it has done it in expanding NATO has been one of the most
culturally and politically, internationally politically arrogant acts
that the West has undertaken.
I am concerned it will lead to some long-term problems because, first
of all, I do not like the fact that, if you expand NATO selectively, we
then
[[Page H5801]]
leave the Baltic States exposed in a no-man's land. I think if we add
three or four countries to NATO, we increase the vulnerability to the
countries closest to Russia, Ukraine, Balkans, countries like that.
Second, we had in this country our own debate about who lost China
more than a generation ago. It was not a healthy debate. I am concerned
that the way in which we approach the expansion of NATO will add fuel
to the fire and add to the capacity of the most hard-line rejectionist
elements within Russia to some year down the road, when the economy
starts to slide again, encourage them in their own who-lost-Eastern-
Europe debate. I think that would operate to the disadvantage of
democratic forces in Russia.
Last, and I think most importantly, as stewards of the taxpayers
money, it is our obligation both to know and to be frank with the
American people about the cost that will be associated with NATO
expansion. I do not think that we have had that frankness and that
openness. I doubt very much that, if the country knew that we are going
to commit ourselves to the concept that an attack on, say, Budapest
would be treated as an attack upon Washington, DC, I think the country
would want a whole lot more debate about that than it has had to this
point. And certainly it would want to know what that could cost us in
this era of competing forces and scarce budgets.
So I wish we had had a more full debate on that subject, but given
the fact that we have not, at least I believe that we certainly ought
to do what the Frank amendment does, which is to take at their word
what they say the cost to us of NATO expansion will be and to see to it
that it does not rise above that ceiling because I believe that will at
least force a stronger debate on the issue. If we are going to make
this decision, it ought to be made with everybody's eyes open, after a
full debate. That is the only way to strengthen rather than weaken the
commitment of our society to involvement in international affairs. That
is the only way that we can discourage rather than encourage
isolationism.
That is why I think that the Frank amendment, while it does not come
soon enough to generate a full-blown debate on what is happening in
NATO, at least gives us an opportunity to be more frank about what it
is we are doing, not meaning a pun there. I congratulate the gentleman
and support his motion.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
At the outset let me just sing the praises of the chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums], ranking member and their staffs for the great
job that they do on the most important committee in the entire
Congress, even more important than our Committee on Rules. That takes a
little bit for me to say that.
Let me also just point out that I rise in support of the concept of
this amendment, if not the specifics. I am a little concerned about
placing a percentage or a dollar figure in an amendment like this. But
if we look at the Constitution of the United States, the primary
purpose for forming this Republic of States into the United States of
America was to provide for a common defense. And in providing for a
common defense, that means in being able to have the capability of
defending America's interests anywhere in the world in order to prevent
an eventual attack on our sovereignty and our way of life and our
democracy.
In doing that, we have responsibilities as leaders of the world. We
have to look at the fact that twice we have been called into battle in
the European continent. It has cost millions and millions and millions
and millions of dollars and a million American lives during those two
world wars. Then the cold war erupted when the Soviet Union became an
entity and tried to force their atheistic philosophy down the throats
of the entire world, and it became necessary to engage in that cold war
at great financial expense to the American taxpayer. But it was money
well spent because today instead of communism breaking out all over the
world we now have democracy, the kind that we enjoy so much breaking
out all over this world.
But that is a very, very fragile peace that we have today. The NATO
alliance was the greatest defense alliance in the history of this world
because, all during that cold war, it kept the peace. It kept this
country and others from being annihilated from nuclear attack. And the
way to keep that peace for the future is to expand NATO. We have an
obligation in America to do that because we are the leader of the free
world. We are the beacon of hope for all people throughout this world.
We cannot just sit back and say, Europe, that is your responsibility
because down the road it then could reflect back on us as a nation.
Therefore, we have to say to the rest of the world, and let me heap
praise on the President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton,
because before he went to Helsinki he met with me for an hour and
discussed his philosophy and our Republican philosophy to make sure
they were on line, that we were speaking the same philosophy; and that
was that there would be an open door to all of those people who had
been deprived of this thing we love so much, our sovereignty, and Bill
Clinton lived up to his word.
I went to Madrid with the President and with others and we sat down.
And over the objections of Jacques Chirac and even Helmut Kohl and many
others, President Clinton stuck to his guns, and he said we will have
an open door policy.
{time} 1245
And, yes, we will bring in Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary.
And then tomorrow it will be Slovenia and Romania. And the next day or
the next year or the year after it will be the Baltic States. And we
wrote that into the communique. I actually had the opportunity to write
it in, which included the Baltic States.
That means that all countries, regardless of size, regardless of
geographic location, regardless of political problems that might affect
Russia, that that door will be kept open. And that is why we must be a
part of NATO.
And, yes, over the years the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Floyd
Spence and myself, and the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Doug Bereuter,
representatives to NATO, to the North Atlantic Assembly, along with Pat
Schroeder, a former colleague of ours on the other side of the aisle,
fought for burden sharing to make sure the other countries paid their
fair share.
And, yes, we must do that today, but let us not be foolhardy in
thinking that when we bring in a country like Slovenia, that has
suffered so much, or Romania or the Baltics, who do not have the
wherewithal, we must remember we have to help them in order to prepare
for this, for an irreversible democracy.
These are the criteria for bringing these countries in: They must
have moved to an irreversible democracy; they must believe in the free
market system; they must believe in human rights for their own people
within their boundaries and those without their boundaries as well; and
then they must be able to participate militarily.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska, who has been so
active in this over the years, and I am sorry to take so much time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me
and commend him for his remarks.
The gentleman, of course, is currently serving as one of the vice
presidents of the North Atlantic Assembly. The gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and
myself, we have all been involved, with others, for quite some period
of time.
I recall my earliest involvement in this particular issue was back in
1982 or 1984, and it seems to me we have been pushing for burden
sharing arrangements since that time, both on infrastructure and every
other way. So before it became popular, we had been pushing for that,
just as I continue to push for reasonable burden sharing on the United
Nations.
But I do think we need to keep in mind, regardless of our support for
the Frank amendment, that the overriding
[[Page H5802]]
consideration for us being in NATO is because it is in our national
interest. And the overriding reason for us encouraging and
participating and actually providing the leadership for expansion of
NATO into the Czech Republic and Hungary and Poland, and thereafter, as
the gentleman said, to other countries, including Slovenia, Romania,
and the Baltic States, is because of our national interest. And that
ought to be the overriding factor.
We will push hard for burden sharing in every way. We expect the
Europeans and Canada to bear their share of the cost, and especially
the new countries, but I also think we need to be careful that we do
not fall for the exaggerated cost. It is no longer reasonable for us to
consider the full infrastructure we have in the front line states in
NATO today, like we have in Germany, and these new states.
So inheriting the infrastructure in places like Hungary, some of
which I have seen in good shape, we can have a dramatic improvement and
a protected environment for the citizens of these three countries
without extraordinary costs.
The defense industry, the opponents of NATO expansion, they put out
some extraordinary costs that are not reasonable. But I do think that
we need to take this step to try to push the Europeans to pay their
share along with the Canadians, but I want to commend the gentleman for
his statement and the chairman and the senior Democrat on the Committee
on National Security for their comments here today, as well as the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress a couple of
points of agreement between us.
First, I very much have in mind trying to get France and Germany and
England and Belgium and Denmark and Norway, quite wealthy countries, to
contribute. I agree with the gentleman that we should not be trying to
get more out of Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic.
Indeed, I think it is essential for these newer democracies, newer
recently, not to put themselves at risk with their own people in terms
of excessive demands here. So I am not trying to get more money out of
the new members. I believe the problem is with the existing NATO
members who have been doing so very well for so long. And that is the
key point.
The second thing I would say, in agreement with the gentleman from
Nebraska, I hope that those figures we have seen are exaggerated. That
is why what this says is we will take the administration's figures at
its word. And we always have the constitutional right as Congress, if
it turns out there is some unforeseen problems, the way this works is
we come back here and nobody doubts they would get very rapid
consideration.
So I am not in dispute with the gentleman's views on the costs.
Indeed, it is precisely those more moderate costs he described that are
the fundamental premise of this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen,
and let me thank also the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who
is a former vice president of the North Atlantic Assembly and has done
such a great job representing us in that body over these many, many
years. He has summed up my debate, so I will not have to go further
other than to tell my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank], he is absolutely on line and we are all in agreement.
As a matter of fact, we should be telling certain people like Jacques
Chirac of France, who have done all they can to disrupt NATO over the
years, they should either participate or get out. And having said that,
I thank the gentleman, and I will be supporting his amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to say to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of
the committee, that I plan to make just a very few brief remarks. This
will be the concluding comments on this side of the aisle, and then I
will be more than happy then to yield back the balance of my time. I
would also indicate that we will be asking for a rollcall vote.
Just in summary, let me conclude and underscore for emphasis a
comment that the gentleman from Massachusetts made. First, what we are
about here today is a motion to instruct conferees. That motion to
instruct conferees simply says they should work as diligently as they
can to preserve the integrity of section 1207, which places a
limitation on the resources to be made available for the purposes of
expansion of NATO to $2 billion or 10 percent, whichever is the lesser
amount, between the fiscal year 1998 to the year 2010.
My distinguished colleague from New York clearly recognizes that if
we are confronted with extraordinary extenuating circumstances, the
Congress of the United States, in this Congress next year or new
Congresses down the road, new administrations can revisit this matter.
We can act. But what we are saying is at this particular moment this is
the most prudent thing to do.
Finally, I would like to say when we listen to the comments offered
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and the
gentlemen from New York, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Solomon, it points out that
this ought to be a beginning point for a debate that has not occurred
in this country, a discussion that has not occurred in this country,
and that is the efficacy and the appropriateness and the direction of
NATO expansion.
In the context of this Republic, there ought to be an informed and
enlightened discussion in America. There ought to be an informed and
enlightened debate in the context of the Congress. And the comments
that the gentlemen have made, to take the opportunity on this motion to
instruct to discuss the merit or the lack thereof of the need for
expansion, simply underscores the comments that many of us have made,
that there ought to be a significant discussion and debate in America
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and will only add to this that the gentleman from California and
myself, as chairman and ranking member of the Committee on National
Security, wrote to our President raising some of these concerns that
have been talked about here today and had a full, lengthy letter back
from him explaining these different positions. We also had a hearing in
our committee and we discussed these same matters today.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the strongest supporters
in this House of the concept of NATO enlargement. I believe that it is
only as a result of our efforts in the Congress that the Clinton
administration and our NATO Allies came to the momentous decision
earlier this month in Madrid to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic to join NATO. And our efforts--most recently in the form of
the European Security Act, passed by this House last month--helped make
certain that NATO would keep the door open to other countries such as
Slovenia, Romania, the Baltic States, and Bulgaria, that will want to
join NATO in the future.
The amendment offered by Mr. Frank, which now appears as section 1207
of the bill, was not offered in an effort to block NATO enlargement.
Rather, it was offered in an effort to signal our continued concern
about the issue of burdensharing within NATO. For this reason, I do not
oppose the motion by Mr. Frank to instruct our conferees on section
1207.
I am pleased to join Chairman Spence, however, in pointing out that
there are very serious problems with section 1207 the way it is
currently drafted. It would be most unwise to impose an inflexible,
binding cap on the amount that the United States will pay for NATO
enlargement. At this point, no one knows for certain just how much NATO
enlargement will cost. But one thing is absolutely clear: We must make
certain that the NATO security guarantee that we are about to extend to
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic is not any hollow guarantee. It
must be a serious guarantee, one that we and our NATO Allies can back
up in a crisis. Therefore it cannot be subject to any arbitrary cost
ceiling.
I would also point out the limitation contained in section 1207 is
not consistent with the administration's cost estimates for NATO
enlargement. The administration's February 1997 cost study projected
that our share of enlargement costs would be approximately 15 percent
of the total, not 10 percent as provided in section 1207.
I am assured that the Committee of Conference will correct these
defects in section
[[Page H5803]]
1207. With that understanding, I join Chairman Spence in urging my
colleague to support the motion.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 0, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
YEAS--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Baker
Blumenauer
Buyer
Davis (VA)
Doggett
Gonzalez
Lipinski
Martinez
Meek
Miller (CA)
Molinari
Pelosi
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Schiff
Snowbarger
Stark
Torres
Watkins
Young (AK)
{time} 1312
Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to unforeseen
circumstances I was unable to vote on H.R. 1119, Rollcall No. 330, and
H.R. 1119, Rollcall call No. 331. If I had been present I would have
voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the
Chair appoints the following conferees:
From the Committee on National Security, for consideration of the
House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Spence, Stump, Hunter, Kasich, Bateman, Hansen, Weldon of
Pennsylvania, Hefley, Saxton, Buyer, Mrs. Fowler, and Messrs. McHugh,
Talent, Everett, Bartlett of Maryland, Lewis of Kentucky, Watts of
Oklahoma, Chambliss, Riley, Dellums, Skelton, Sisisky, Spratt, Ortiz,
Pickett, Evans, Taylor of Mississippi, Abercrombie, Meehan, Ms. Harman,
and Messrs. McHale, Kennedy of Rhode Island, Blagojevich, Snyder, and
Rodriquez.
As additional conferees from the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, for consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of
that committee under clause 2 of rule XLVII:
Messrs. Goss, Lewis of California, and Dicks.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Commerce, for
consideration of sections 344, 601, 654, 735, 1021, 3143, 3144, 3201,
3202, 3402, and 3404 of the House bill, and sections 338, 601, 663,
706, 1064, 2823, 3136, 3140, 3151, 3160, 3201, and 3402 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Bliley, Dan Schaefer of Colorado, and Dingell.
Provided that Mr. Oxley is appointed in lieu of Mr. Dan Schaefer of
Colorado for consideration of sections 344 and 1021 of the House bill
and section 2823 of the Senate amendment.
Provided that Mr. Bilirakis is appointed in lieu of Mr. Dan Schaefer
of Colorado for consideration of sections 601, 654, and 735 of the
House bill, and sections 338, 601, 663, and 706 of the Senate
amendment.
Provided that Mr. Tauzin is appointed in lieu of Mr. Dan Schaefer of
Colorado for consideration of section 1064 of the Senate amendment.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, for consideration of sections 374, 658, and 3143 of the
House bill, and section 664 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference:
Mr. Goodling, Mr. Fawell, and Ms. Sanchez.
Provided that Mr. Riggs is appointed in lieu of Mr. Fawell for
consideration of section 658 of the House bill and section 664 of the
Senate amendment.
[[Page H5804]]
As additional conferees from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, for consideration of sections 322 and 3527 of the House
bill, and sections 1068, 1107, 2811, and 3527 of the Senate amendment,
and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Burton of Indiana, Horn, and Waxman.
As additional conferees from the Committee on House Oversight, for
consideration of section 543 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference:
Messrs. Thomas, Ney, and Gejdenson.
As additional conferees from the Committee on International
Relations, for consideration of sections 1101-1111, 1202, 1204, 1205,
1207, 1210, and 1231-1234 of the House bill, and sections 1009, 1013,
1021, 1022, 1056, 1057, 1082, and 1085 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Gilman, Bereuter, and Hamilton.
As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, for
consideration of sections 374, 1057, 3521, 3522, and 3541 of the House
bill and sections 831, 1073, 1075, 1106, and 1201-1216 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Hyde, Smith of Texas, and Conyers.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Resources, for
consideration of sections 214, 601, 653, 1021, 2835, 2901-2914 and 3404
of the House bill, and sections 234, 381-392, 601, 706, 2819, and 3158
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Young of Alaska, Tauzin, and Miller of California.
Provided that Mr. Hefley is appointed in lieu of Mr. Saxton for
consideration of section 3404 of the House bill.
Provided that Mr. Delahunt is appointed in lieu of Mr. Miller of
California for consideration of sections 2901-2914 of the House bill,
and sections 381-392 of the Senate amendment.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Science, for
consideration of sections 214 and 3148 of the House bill, and sections
234 and 1064 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Calvert, and Brown of California.
Provided that Mr. Rohrabacher is appointed in lieu of Mr. Calvert for
consideration of section 1064 of the Senate amendment.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for consideration of sections 345, 563, 601, 1021,
2861, and 3606 of the House bill, and section 601 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Shuster, Gilchrest, and Borski.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for
consideration of sections 751, 752 and 759 of the House bill, and
sections 220, 542, 751, 752, 758, 1069, 1074, and 1076 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Smith of New Jersey, Bilirakis, and Kennedy of Massachusetts.
There was no objection.
____________________