[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2091-E2092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THOUGHTS ON NATO

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM BARRETT

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 24, 1997

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the 
Record an article on NATO expansion written by a respected reporter 
from my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. Bill Kaplan.
  Mr. Kaplan's article appeared in the Saturday, August 2, 1997, 
edition of the Wisconsin State Journal:

                   NATO Expansion Needs Public Debate

                            (By Bill Kaplan)

       In the film ``Advice and Consent'' actor Henry Fonda, 
     playing a U.S. secretary of State nominee, says: ``Son, this 
     is a Washington, D.C., kind of lie--that's where the other 
     person knows you're lying and he knows you know.''
       That's a good description of the recent debate in Congress 
     on the defense budget and President Clinton's decision to 
     expand NATO. A brief review of the end of the Cold War makes 
     the case.
       The West won the Cold War decisively. The Berlin Wall came 
     down in 1989. By 1991 all Communist regimes in Central and 
     Eastern Europe had collapsed, the Warsaw Pact had ceased to 
     exist and the Soviet Union had dissolved. By 1994 Russian 
     troops had withdrawn from former Soviet satellites. Moreover, 
     tough conventional arms agreements were reached in 1990-92 by 
     the West, Russia and all other former Communist nations.
       Also by 1994 Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine had given 
     up all of their nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty. The United States and Russia began to 
     implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START I, 
     reducing their nuclear weapons. Moreover, START II, with even 
     greater reductions in nuclear weapons, was signed by the 
     United States and Russia, though only the United States has 
     ratified it.
       Finally, all observers agree that the Russian military has 
     sharply degraded and could not prevail even in Chechnya. In 
     contrast, the United States is the only remaining superpower.
       So what about U.S. defense spending at near Cold War levels 
     and the expansion of NATO?
       Recently, the House and Senate approved a $268 billion 
     military budget bill. That's 5\1/2\ times what Russia spends. 
     It's 18 times as large as the combined spending of Cuba, 
     Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Moreover, 
     U.S. defense spending dwarfs what all our NATO allies and 
     Japan spend combined. But it gets worse.
       The House version of the $268 billion military budget bill 
     calls for buying more B-2 bombers, which the Pentagon does 
     not need or want. The final price tag will be about $27 
     billion for planes that have no mission.
       Wisconsin can be proud that only one member of the state's 
     congressional delegation--GOP Rep. Mark Neumann--voted for 
     this bonanza for defense contractors. And, most members of 
     the Wisconsin congressional delegation, in the spirit of 
     bipartisanship, went on to vote against the wasteful $268 
     billion military budget bill.
       There were two exceptions. Democratic Ray Jay Johnson 
     deserves a dart for voting for this bad bill. And, Neumann, 
     after voting for the B-2 bombers, did not bother to vote on 
     final passage of the military budget bill, which had the 
     funds for the B-2.
       But what about the expansion of NATO? Perhaps former 
     Wisconsin Rep. Bob Kastenmeier said it best. ``NATO expansion 
     is an extension of American power and influence, and 
     represents an abject inability of European leaders to take 
     responsibility for what happens in Europe. What should really 
     be of interest to the U.S. is joining together the East and 
     West in the European Union.''
       Kastenmeier added: ``If the expansion of NATO is not aimed 
     at Russia, then who?''
       Similarly, retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll of the 
     Center for Defense Information, a Washington, D.C., think 
     tank, said: ``The U.S. is cynical and misrepresents the 
     purpose of NATO expansion. Its purpose is to prevent a Soviet 
     (Russian) revival. And, it will change NATO from a defense 
     alliance to one based on hegemony.''
       Carroll went on to say: ``It will cost a lot and prevent 
     further nuclear arms control--nukes will become a safety net 
     for the Russians.''
       Wisconsin Rep. David Obey warned ``The expansion of NATO 
     will create a new division in Europe. It will move the line 
     eastward.''

[[Page E2092]]

       Yet, there has been almost no public debate on what is the 
     most far-reaching foreign policy initiative in a generation.
       However, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and 19 other senators, 
     recently sent a letter to President Clinton questioning the 
     expansion of NATO. This bipartisan group spans the gamut from 
     conservative Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., to liberal Sen. Paul 
     Wellstone, D-Minn. So why didn't Wisconsin's Feingold and 
     Kohl sign on?
       It is time for both Wisconsin senators to step forward and 
     join the debate. As Warner pointed out. NATO expansion 
     requires two-thirds of the Senate to vote for it, and the 
     ``Senate's approval is no mere formality.'' Better yet, 
     Feingold and Kohl ought to convene grass roots hearings in 
     Wisconsin to find out what the state's residents think before 
     the Senate votes on NATO expansion.

     

                          ____________________