[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11955-S11957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         COMMENDING THE SENATE FOR ADDRESSING NATO ENLARGEMENT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I wish to address the great efforts that 
this

[[Page S11956]]

Chamber has undertaken on the matter of NATO enlargement--the extension 
of the alliance membership to the democracies of Central and Eastern 
Europe.
  It is sometimes charged that Congress has provided serious 
consideration to this matter. Anyone who makes this argument has not 
paid attention to the legislation Congress passed on this matter over 
the last 3 years and have clearly ignored the activities of our 
committees, particularly the extensive amount of hearings that have 
been held over the last 2 months. Our leadership on both sides of the 
aisle is to be commended for the time and effort they have dedicated to 
this important matter.
  Allow me to quickly review the highlights of Congress' role in the 
NATO enlargement issue. It is important to remember that Congress, in a 
most bipartisan manner, has led the charge for NATO enlargement.
  In 1994, the 104th Congress, then led by a Democratic majority, 
passed the NATO Enlargement Participation Act, an initiative of then-
Senator Hank Brown. This act not only endorsed NATO enlargement, but 
also called upon the President to establish programs to assist selected 
Central European democracies prepare for the burdens and 
responsibilities of alliance membership. This was a bipartisan 
initiative, one that found strong support in both parties. I might add 
that NATO enlargement was even a key pillar in the GOP's Contract With 
America.
  In 1996, the Senate passed by recorded vote of 81-16 the NATO 
Enlargement Facilitation Act, a bill that explicitly endorsed NATO 
membership for Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia.
  This summer the alliance finally heeded the urging of Congress. Last 
July, at the Madrid summit, the North Atlantic Council invited Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic to accession negotiations that will 
culminate in protocols of accessions that should be approved and signed 
this December at the annual NAC ministerial.
  I might add that I had the honor serving as a member of the 
President's delegation to the Madrid summit along with Senators Joe 
Biden, Gordon Smith, and Barbara Mikulski. We attended in our capacity 
as members of the Senate's NATO Observer Group. Our role in this 
historic summit reflected the bipartisan support behind NATO's policy 
of enlargement and the degree of consultation and communication 
occurring on this issue between Congress and the administration.
  Since the Madrid summit, and particularly over the last 2 months, 
this Chamber has focused on NATO enlargement in a manner I believe 
unprecedented for any realm of issues. I and Senator Joe Biden have had 
the privilege of facilitating 16 NATO Observer Group meetings with 
administration officials, experts, and foreign officials including NATO 
Secretary General, Javier Solana.
  I want to especially commend the leadership of the Senate committees, 
whose statutory jurisdictions are far broader, for directing so much of 
their energies to this matter.
  Over the last 2 months alone, the Foreign Relations Committee, the 
Appropriations Committee, and the Senate Budget Committee have held a 
total of nine hearings on NATO enlargement. They have addressed such 
issues as the geopolitical rational behind this initiative, the affect 
it has on Russia's evolution as international actor and as a democracy, 
the financial costs, and the military implications, among other issues, 
and the pro's and con's that one hears on these matters.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of the meetings and hearings that have been conducted by these 
three Senate committees on NATO enlargement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Senate Committee Hearings on NATO Enlargement

       October 7: Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins 
     hearing on NATO expansion. Strategic Rationale of NATO 
     Enlargement with Madeleine Albright.
       October 9: Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
     NATO Enlargement. Pros and Cons of NATO Enlargement with 
     Senator Roth, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, 
     Michael Mandelbaum and Jonathan Dean.
       October 21: Appropriations Committee hearing on NATO 
     Enlargement. NATO Enlargement Costs with Madeleine Albright 
     and William Cohen.
       October 22: Appropriations Hearing on NATO Enlargement. 
     NATO Enlargement Costs and DoD Readiness Impact with Chairman 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton and SACEUR General 
     Wes Clark.
       October 23: Appropriations Committee Hearing on NATO 
     Enlargement. GAO Studies on NATO Enlargement Costs with Henry 
     L. Hinton, Jr., Assistant Comptroller General, General 
     Accounting Office.
       October 28: Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
     NATO Enlargement. Costs, Benefits and Burden Sharing of NATO 
     Enlargement.
       October 29: Budget Committee hearing on NATO Enlargement. 
     NATO/EMU Costs with James Baker and Susan Eisenhower.
       October 30: Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
     NATO Enlargement. NATO-Russia Relations with Henry Kissinger.
       November 5: Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
     NATO Enlargement. Public Views on NATO Enlargement.

  Mr. ROTH. These hearings have been conducted to the highest standard. 
They have addressed the most contentious and potentially divisive 
dimensions of NATO enlargement. They have provided a powerful podium 
for skeptics and for those who simply want to be sure that all the 
``i's'' have been dotted.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that NATO enlargement will yield a 
stronger alliance, a more peaceful and more stable Europe, and a Europe 
that will be an even more effective partner for the United States in a 
world where our shared interests are increasingly global in nature.
  I am not going to burden this Chamber with another rendition of why I 
support NATO enlargement.
  However, I have followed these hearings closely, and I would like to 
address what I think one should draw from their deliberations on three 
of the most important issues of NATO enlargement: the cost; its 
relationship to America's global interests; and, the future of Russia.
  Costs has been the most debated dimension of NATO enlargement. 
However, the Senate's examination of this issue so far leaves me even 
more confident that this will be a most worthwhile investment.
  Earlier this year, the President, at the request of Congress, 
estimated that NATO enlargement will cost the United States some $100-
200 million per year over the next decade.
  Last month, Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright testified to the 
Appropriations Committee that the costs to the United States may be 
less because some if not much of the infrastructure existing in Poland, 
the Czech Republic, and Hungary is more capable than previously 
estimated.
  More detail on the costs of NATO enlargement is an urgent priority. 
NATO will soon complete its own estimate of the costs of integrating 
the three nations. This report is due before the December NAC 
ministerial. It is imperative that this study is fully transparent, 
clear, and specific.
  With that said, even if NATO enlargement were to cost the United 
States some $500 million a year over the decade, that yearly cost would 
still amount to about a quarter of the cost of one B-2 bomber. That is 
not a bad deal considering the gains we will attain in solidifying 
peace and stability in post-cold-war Europe.
  The Senate hearings have also reaffirmed my confidence that NATO 
enlargement will enhance America's ability to secure its vital interest 
around the globe--not just those in Europe.
  NATO enlargement is critical step toward a more unified and more 
peaceful Europe. It is, thus, fundamental to Europe's evolution into a 
partner that will more effectively meet global challenges before to the 
transatlantic community. An undivided Europe at peace is a Europe that 
will be better able to look outward, a Europe better able to join with 
the United States to address necessary global security concerns. A 
partnership with an undivided Europe in the time-tested architecture of 
NATO will enable the United States to more effectively meet the global 
challenges to its vital interests at time when our defense resources 
are increasingly strained.
  This was a, if not the, central theme of former national security 
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent presentation before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. To use his words:

       NATO expansion is central to the vitality of the European-
     American connection, to the

[[Page S11957]]

     scope of a secure and democratic Europe, and to the ability 
     of the America and Europe to work together in promoting 
     international security.

  European instability, which is inherently more likely should we fail 
to extend Alliance membership to the democracies of Central Europe, 
portends to be the greatest of drains upon U.S. defense resources, 
energy, and effort. This has already proven to be the case in Bosnia. 
We must take the pro-active steps necessary to consolidate and widen 
the zone of security and, thus, peace and stability in Europe. NATO 
enlargement is the most effective step we can take toward this end.
  Third, these Senate hearings have constructively and aggressively 
addressed concerns that have been voiced about the potential impact of 
NATO enlargement upon Russia's future.
  Testimony from Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, our former 
Ambassador to Moscow, emphasized that NATO enlargement has not produced 
a revanchist Russian foreign policy nor undercut democracy in Russia. 
In fact, let me quote directly form Ambassador Pickering's testimony.
  He stated:

       Over the last 18 months, precisely, when NATO enlargement 
     has been a salient point of our agenda, Russian reform and 
     security cooperation have moved forward, not backward.

  This former ambassador to Russia added that in the course of NATO 
enlargement, Yeltsin was reelected as Russia's president and that since 
then he has elevated reformers in his government. Moreover, Yeltsin has 
appointed a new defense minister, one who publicly supports START II. 
Most importantly, last May Russia signed the Founding Act, an agreement 
that offers an unprecedented opportunity for a new era of cooperation 
and partnership between the Alliance and Russia.
  Mr. President, too many times this year Congress has been accused of 
paying inadequate attention to the policy of NATO enlargement. The fact 
is that Congress has aggressively addressed this matter. Congress has 
not only been engaged in this policy its bipartisan leadership on this 
matter has actually been a catalyst of action.
  Much commendation is due to the Senate leadership and the Chamber as 
a whole for the sustained attention that has been directed to the many 
facets of this issue. The amount of consultation that has occurred 
between the administration and Congress makes NATO enlargement a model 
of how to approach the executive-legislative dimension of U.S. security 
policy.
  I fully recognize that our deliberations on NATO enlargement are far 
from over. More hearings are sure to be held on this important policy, 
as they should be. However, I thought it important to highlight the 
tremendously effective efforts that this Chamber has already directed 
to this matter of national security.

                          ____________________