[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.

                          ____________________