[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 33 (Monday, March 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S2446]
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 CZECH REPUBLIC

                                 ______
                                 

                   CRAIG EXECUTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 2081

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. CRAIG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the resolution of ratification for the treaty (Treaty Doc. No. 105-36) 
supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in section 3 of the resolution, 
     insert the following:
       (  ) Statutory authorization for deployments in bosnia and 
     herzegvian.--Prior to the deposit of the United States 
     instrument of ratification, there must be enacted a law 
     containing specific authorization for the continued 
     deployment of the United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina as part of the NATO mission in that country.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am filing an amendment related to 
the resolution of ratification for the proposed expansion of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  Last May, President Clinton publicly embraced the idea of a ``new 
NATO'' mission. It is my concern that the President's vision of a new 
NATO will signal the end of NATO as a defensive alliance and begin its 
role as a regional peacekeeping organization. The President declared:

       We are building a new NATO. It will remain the strongest 
     alliance in history, with smaller, more flexible forces, 
     prepared to provide for our defense, but also trained for 
     peacekeeping. It will work closely with other nations that 
     share our hopes and values and interests through the 
     Partnership for Peace. It will be an alliance directed no 
     longer against a hostile bloc of nations, but instead 
     designed to advance the security of every democracy in 
     Europe--NATO's old members, new members, and non-members 
     alike.

  I cannot support the President's call for a new NATO to be the de 
facto regional peacekeeper in Europe. President Clinton's peacekeeping 
operation in Bosnia has been going on for more than two years, without 
authorization from Congress, with costs mounting far above every 
estimate, and with mission end-dates repeatedly broken. The mission in 
Bosnia is now just what we were promised it would not be: an 
unauthorized, open-ended, no end-date, nation building deployment with 
no withdrawal criteria.
  In 1995, President Clinton vowed that the U.S. troop deployed to 
Bosnia ``should and will take about one year.'' Three years, and $8 
billion later, the Administration now admits ``we do not propose a 
fixed end date for the deployment.'' Will the expansion of NATO be a 
green light for other unauthorized, open-ended, and cost missions for 
the U.S.?
  Today I am filing an amendment which provides that before the 
President can deposit the instruments of ratification for NATO 
expansion he must receive authorization for the Bosnia mission. Let me 
be clear on one point: this is NOT a ``war power'' amendment. This does 
not say he cannot continue the deployment in Bosnia without 
authorization, nor does it cut off funds for that mission, nor does it 
set an end-date for that mission, nor does it establish withdrawal 
criteria. It does, however, require the President to cooperate with 
Congress to set reasonable parameters for that mission before he gets a 
blank check--like a ``new NATO ''--for more just out of area, out of 
Article 5 missions.
  Membership in NATO is a commitment of U.S. blood. This is a 
responsibility that I do not take lightly. For the sake of our men and 
women serving in this dangerous and volatile region, the mission in 
Bosnia ought to be authorized by Congress.
                                 ______
                                 

           CRAIG (AND HUTCHISON) EXECUTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 2082

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the resolution of ratification for 
the treaty (Treaty Doc. No. 105-36) supra; as follows:

       In section 3(2)(A), strike ``Prior'' and insert ``Subject 
     to subparagraph (C), prior''.
       In section 3(2)(B)(i), strike ``Not'' and insert ``Subject 
     to subparagraph (C), not later than 180 days after the date 
     of adoption of this resolution, and not''.
       At the end of section 3(2), add the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (C) Resolution of approval.--
       (i) In general.--Prior to the date of deposit of the United 
     States instrument of ratification, the Senate has adopted a 
     resolution, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
     Senators present and voting, stating in substance the 
     approval of the certification under subparagraph (A), and the 
     first report required to be submitted under subparagraph (B).
       (ii) Procedures.--A resolution described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) that is introduced on or after the date of 
     certification under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be considered 
     in the Senate in accordance with the provisions of section 
     601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms 
     Export Control Act of 1976.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am filing an amendment to the 
resolution of ratification for the proposed expansion of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  As the Senate begins debate about expansion, I think it is fair to 
say that most Senators--whether they favor, oppose, or are undecided 
about the proposed treaty revision--can all agree that the issue of 
cost to the U.S. taxpayer is of great concern. Unfortunately, these 
costs are yet to be determined. The Administration claims the NATO 
expansion bill for the U.S. will be approximately $1 billion. On the 
other hand, the Congressional Budget Office contends it will cost 
taxpayers $125 billion. Given the enormous discrepancy between the 
estimates, it only makes sense that we know what actual costs will be 
before we make an irrevocable decision to enlarge NATO.
  I would like to commend the Foreign Relations Committee for their 
fine work in crafting language detailing American cost obligations to 
NATO. However, there seems to be one problem: all of this cost related 
information will be made available to Congress only after the Senate's 
advice and consent to expansion is final and irrevocable. That means if 
the information is not satisfactory to the Senate, we will have no 
recourse.
  The amendment I am filing simply provides that the Congress has the 
fullest possible information as to what we will pay for, before we 
commit to the United States to this tremendous political and economic 
decision by requiring a Senate vote of approval related to cost, 
benefits, burden-sharing, and military implications of NATO enlargement 
prior to the President depositing the instruments of ratification.

                          ____________________