[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S2390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON ACCESSION OF POLAND, 
                    HUNGARY, AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a few minutes 
about the issue of NATO expansion, and I want to offer these two 
amendments today. These amendments, I believe, will serve to bring 
greater accountability to the unresolved issue of the additional costs 
that will result with the accession of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech 
Republic to the NATO alliance.
  My first amendment requires all costs related to either the admission 
of new NATO members or their participation in NATO to be specifically 
authorized by law prior to the payment of these costs. I am speaking of 
the U.S. costs. Our U.S. costs would have to be specifically authorized 
by law before they could be paid.
  Actually, this ought to be the proper interpretation of the 
Constitution. But too often we find that costs--particularly those of 
foreign policy objectives supported by the Department of Defense--are 
incurred and then we are asked to pay for them in the budget process 
later.
  The costs related to NATO enlargement are still general estimates, 
but the debate is continuing as to what is actually required and what 
portion of these requirements should be paid by the NATO common 
budgets. These estimates will continue to evolve and change in the 
coming months, well past the completion of the NATO expansion debates 
here in this Chamber.
  U.S. costs could increase as NATO finalizes its implementation plans 
and eligibility criteria for common funding, or if new member countries 
have problems paying for infrastructure improvements. A Congressional 
Budget Office study released last week confirms that the United States 
is likely to incur bilateral costs for expanded exercises, training, 
and programs to incorporate NATO compatible equipment into the central 
European militaries.
  My amendment would ensure a more accurate accounting for, and 
explanation of, the actual costs related to NATO enlargement as the 
process continues to develop.
  My second amendment will restrict the use of funds for payment of 
NATO costs after September 30 of this year unless the Secretaries of 
Defense and State certify to the Congress that the total percentage of 
NATO common costs paid by the United States will not exceed 20 percent 
during the NATO fiscal year. Historically, NATO has not systematically 
reviewed or renegotiated member cost shares for the common budgets. 
This amendment would effectively require a reduction of the U.S. 
percentage paid in support of NATO common budget costs from a historic 
average of 24 or 25 percent. And I believe it is actually higher than 
that, but that is the average that they use. This is a reassessment 
that is long overdue in light of U.S. global defense responsibilities.
  We have to remember that NATO was formed at the time when we were 
coming out of World War II, before the United States had started really 
to carry out its global responsibilities. When Spain joined NATO in 
1982, there were pro rata adjustments to the civil and military budget 
shares based upon Spain's increased contribution. No other formal 
renegotiations have occurred since 1955 in these two common budget 
areas. The NSIP--or NATO infrastructure budget--has been adjusted five 
times since 1960, but that was due more to the way projects were 
approved and funded than any actual attempt to reallocate the 
percentages.
  With the amount included in the emergency supplemental that we will 
consider today, the United States will have expended over $7.5 billion 
for operations in and around Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia by the 
end of fiscal year 1998. Mr. President, it is estimated that the United 
States is paying over 50 percent of the costs of maintaining the peace 
in Bosnia--nearly $200 million a month in 1997 alone--and there is no 
end in sight to the U.S. presence there with the President's decision 
to keep deployments there indefinitely.

  Our defense overseas funding in NATO countries--the cost of 
maintaining our forces there, including the operations and maintenance, 
military pay, family housing, and military construction--now averages 
nearly $10 billion a year. Security assistance to the NATO allies since 
1950--this is the military assistance and military education and 
training--has totaled over $19 billion.
  No other member of NATO has the global defense role of the United 
States, nor does any other member have the forward-deployed presence in 
potential flash point areas such as the Middle East or the Korean 
peninsula.
  There is just no alternative but to take the two steps that I am 
going to ask the Senate to propose to the House and to the President by 
these two amendments.
  I would like to introduce the amendments.
  The first is an amendment that I mentioned to require prior specific 
authorization of funds before U.S. funds may be used to pay NATO 
enlargement costs. It is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Campbell, 
Roberts, Thurmond, and Warner.
  The second amendment is the amendment to require that certification 
of payments to NATO will not cause the U.S. share of NATO common budget 
accounts or activities to exceed 20 percent, and that is cosponsored by 
Senators Byrd, Campbell, Roberts and Warner.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________