[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2273-E2274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATO INFRASTRUCTURE FAIR SHARE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MAX SANDLIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Saturday, November 8, 1997

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will ensure our allies

[[Page E2274]]

pay their fair share to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
Investment Program [NSIP]. My legislation will reduce the amount the 
United States contributes to NSIP to $140 million in each of the next 3 
fiscal years. This bill will save taxpayers $177 million
  NSIP is a program designed to improve the transportation and 
infrastructure of NATO member nations. Under the fiscal year 1998 
military construction appropriation bill signed by the President on 
September 30, 1997, the U.S. contributes $153 million to NSIP. This 
amount was appropriately reduced from the fiscal year 1996, $161 
million and fiscal year 1997, $172 million contributions. The United 
States still pays a disproportionate amount into this account, however, 
while receiving minimal benefit to our own infrastructure.
  The NSIP supports projects and activities listed by NATO as 
capability packages, stand-alone projects, urgent requirements, and 
minor works. The projects are then placed in the following categories: 
authorized works, intra-theater, and trans-Atlantic force mobility; 
surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence systems; logistics 
support and re-supply; lines of communications control, training 
support, and exercise facilities; nuclear capabilities; and political-
military consultation. These programs are important and I strongly 
advocate a prepared military. But why do we continue to spend money to 
expand logistic support and re-supply in Europe when we continue to 
downsize military depots in this country? Depots are necessary to 
provide the logistic support and re-supply efforts essential to defend 
our Nation from a military attack.
  Why do we continue to spend money on transportation infrastructure to 
enhance force mobility in Europe while we continue to cut funding to 
our own Nation's transportation infrastructure? The Interstate Highway 
System was conceived so the U.S. military would be able to move forces 
and equipment from coast to coast. Highway capital investment per 1,000 
vehicle mile of travel in the United States decreased by 17 percent 
from 1985-95, while travel increased by 37 percent. The United States 
needs an additional $15 billion annually to maintain current conditions 
on our roads and bridges and another $33 billion annually to improve 
conditions and performance. We must find alternate sources of income to 
improve our roads in this country.
  I am an advocate of a strong national defense and have fought to 
increase money in the Defense budget and to fund the weapons programs 
essential to our military readiness. However, at a time when we are 
closing military bases and putting American soldiers out of work, it is 
wrong for American taxpayers to continue paying billions of dollars 
annually to benefit wealthy nations such as England, Germany, and 
France while these same countries use their capital to compete with us 
in international markets. Our country has for too long assumed the 
lion's share of the cost of defending our allies. These countries do 
not have war-torn, war-tattered economies. These countries are tough, 
shrewd international competitors. They have strong economies that give 
them the capability to pay for their own defense.
  I believe NATO is one of the organizations that precipitated our 
victory in the cold war. As we prepare to expand NATO to include the 
emerging democracies of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, we 
must realize that expanding NATO will not be easy and will in fact be a 
rather expensive operation. I advocate expanding NATO and do not 
believe we should make these countries, which are feeling the growing 
pains of the change from a Communist economic system to a capitalist 
system, pay any more than they can afford. However, we must ask our 
wealthy European allies to pay an appropriate portion of the cost of 
expanding the infrastructure that is needed to defend these nations.

  When I first came to Congress, I pledged to work to enact legislation 
ensuring Texas receives an equitable share of transportation funds. 
This goal has yet to be achieved. However, while we continue to work 
toward that goal domestically, we can also work to see that U.S. 
taxpayers receive some benefit from every dollar they spend that is 
earmarked for infrastructure. This bill aims to do just that by 
decreasing the amount of money the United States contributes to the 
NSIP. For every dollar that Texas contributes to the national highway 
trust fund, it receives approximately $.77 cents in return. 
Massachusetts, on the other hand, receives $2.13 for each dollar it 
invests. Connecticut has a nearly 187 percent return on its dollar. 
Clearly, Texans already contribute transportation funds to other 
States. Why should we be asked to contribute transportation funds to 
other countries as well? My constituents do not receive adequate funds 
to repair our own roads, but they are asked to pay for the roads of 
people abroad.
  America's infrastructure needs are great. With the heavy increase in 
the volume of traffic due to the implementation of NAFTA, we in Texas 
are more aware of that fact than most. The increase in the number of 
trucks on our highways has left many of our roads with potholes that 
have rendered them almost impassable. However, while the potholes 
remain along highways in east Texas, the taxpayers see their hard 
earned income going not to improve the Federal highways they use, but 
to build roads and highways in Germany, France, and England.
  We have seen a tremendous amount of support for burden sharing in 
recent years. This support was evident when the House agreed to the 
conference report this year on H.R. 1119, the National Defense 
Authorization Act. That bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 
1998 and 1999 military activities of the Department of Defense and 
prescribes military personnel strengths for those fiscal years. The 
bill contains important provisions on burden sharing. Section 1221 
instructs the President to step up efforts to increase burden sharing 
from nations with whom we have military relations by having them take 
one or more of the following actions: increase their annual budgetary 
outlays for national defense as a percentage of its gross domestic 
product by 10 percent or at least to a level commensurate to that of 
the United States by September 30, 1998; increase the amount of 
military assets they contribute to multinational military activities; 
increase the amount of annual budgetary outlays of foreign assistance; 
and in nations with U.S. military bases, increase their financial 
contributions to the payment of the U.S. military non-personnel costs.
  The Defense authorization bill also includes a sense-of-Congress 
resolution dealing with the costs of enlarging NATO. Section 1223 
contains a section that states: ``It is the sense of Congress that the 
analysis of the North Atlantic Alliance of the military requirements 
relating to NATO enlargement and of the financial costs tothe Alliance 
of NATO enlargement will be one of the major factors in the 
consideration by the Senate of the ratification of instruments to 
approve the admission of new member nations to the Alliance and by 
Congress for the authorization and appropriation of the funding for the 
costs associated with such enlargement.''
  The burdensharing proposals that have been passed in recent years 
have proved to be an effective way of encouraging wealthy foreign 
countries to begin paying their fair share for their own defense. 
Legislation in 1989 called upon Japan to increase its share of the cost 
of stationing United States troops there. This amendment has led to 
billions of dollars in savings for the U.S. taxpayer since then, 
including over $3.7 billion last year. Japan now contributes 78 percent 
of the non-personnel cost of stationing United States troops there.
  It is essential that we continue to stress the importance of 
burdensharing principles. Annually, we spend about 4 percent of our 
gross national product on defense while France spends a mere 2.5 
percent and Germany a paltry 1.5 percent. As we have seen with the 
Japanese, if we apply pressure to nations capable of sharing in the 
cost of their defense, we will save United States tax dollars without 
removing one United States troop from foreign soil. I believe this bill 
is an important first step in improving our Nation's infrastructure and 
making our wealthy allies share the burden of their defense.

                          ____________________