[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 48 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3621-S3630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Minnesota

  Some of my colleagues have stated that the American people have not 
been informed about the issues surrounding NATO expansion. Well, I can 
categorically state that is not the case in Minnesota. Minnesotans have 
participated in an ongoing dialogue on the merits of expanding NATO at 
every level--from the Minnesota legislature, to academic symposia, to 
town hall meetings. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record the remarks of three Minnesotans who have 
worked diligently for the inclusion of Poland, Hungary and the Czech 
Republic in NATO: Mr. John Radzilowski, Mr. Lazlo Fulop, and Ms. 
Paulette Will. They made an extraordinary effort to make sure that 
their fellow Minnesotans had the opportunity to become well-informed 
about the issues surrounding NATO expansion.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement by John Radzilowski in Favor of a Resolution Memorializing 
  Congress To Support the Admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
      Republic to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (HF 2417)


 before the minnesota house of representatives, committee on economic 
  development and international trade, january 21, 1998, rep. michael 
                              jaros, chair

(John Radzilowski is president of Polish American Cultural Institute of 
   Minnesota. He is a historian, and a freelance writer and editor, 
currently in the final stages of his Ph.D. candidacy. He is the author 
of three books, the co-author of four others, as well as many articles, 
   reviews, and stories. He has written on topics such as Minnesota 
   history, east European history, immigration, and American ethnic 
                                groups)

       Mr. Radzilowski: I would like to thank the committee for 
     providing me the opportunity to speak today and I am very 
     pleased to be able to speak in favor of the resolution 
     supporting NATO membership for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic. As a Polish American who grew up in Minnesota, I am 
     especially proud to see the legislature considering this 
     vital issue. Since the beginning of American history, the 
     interests and values of the Polish and American peoples have 
     coincided. During our war for independence, Americans were 
     aided by many Polish patriots. Kazimierz Pulaski founded the 
     U.S. Calvary and died fighting the British at Savannah. 
     Tadeusz Kosciuszko, a close friend of Thomas Jefferson, 
     played a key role in the American victory at Saratoga, and 
     designed the fortress of West Point (which later became our 
     military academy). Kosciuszko was also a fierce of foe of 
     slavery and on hearing that Congress had awarded him a 
     plantation for his services, he ordered Jefferson to free its 
     slaves, sell the plantation, and use the money to educate 
     freed blacks. Poland's 1791 Constitution was based on the 
     U.S. Constitution, and was only the second democratic 
     constitution in the world.
       Although Poland lost her fight for independence, Pols kept 
     their dream alive. When they could not win their own freedom, 
     Pols battled for the independence of oppressed peoples around 
     the world, becoming known as the scourge of tyrants. 
     Fleeing political oppression and economic hardship, Poles 
     found a haven here in America. Today, there are about 10 
     million Polish Americans, while Minnesota boasts about a 
     quarter million Polish Americans, making us the state's 
     sixth largest ethnic or racial group. [According to the 
     1990 U.S. Census.] Polish Americans have distinguished 
     themselves in America's service. According to the 1990 
     U.S. Census, Polish Americans have the highest per capita 
     percentage of veterans in their population than any of the 
     other ethnic and racial groups the government keeps track 
     of.
       After World War I, Poland regained her independence, thanks 
     in part to the efforts of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who 
     is still considered a hero in Poland today. Following the 
     shameful Munich Pact of 1938, in which an independent 
     Czechoslovakia was turned over to Hitler, Poland refused to 
     give in to German threats and was attacked in September 1939 
     and defeated by Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union 
     after a month of desperate fighting. Many Poles escaped to 
     the West, where they helped make up the fourth largest Allied 
     force in the fight against Nazism. On many occasions Polish 
     and American troops fought side by side. Polish fighters 
     escorted American bombers on raids deep into Germany. Polish 
     destroyers watched over merchant convoys in U-Boat infested 
     waters. In Italy, the Polish victory at Monte Cassino allowed 
     the Americans to break out of the Anzio beachhead and capture 
     Rome. On August 19, 1944, soldiers of the Polish 1st Armored 
     Division linked up with Gen. George Patton's 90th Infantry 
     Division near the French town of Falaise to close the trap on 
     60,000 Nazi troops, destroying the bulk of the German army in 
     the West.
       World War II cost the lives of some 6 million Polish 
     citizens (a number divided about evenly between Christians 
     and Jews), as well as incalculable losses of property and 
     cultural and artistic treasures. Despite the terrible cost, 
     and despite fighting for the winning side, Poland did not 
     regain her freedom. Her struggle against tyranny was 
     forgotten. Instead, Poland, like her neighbors Hungary and 
     Czechoslovakia, became a satellite of the Soviet Union, a 
     nation that was responsible for the deaths of almost 1 
     million Poles. Yet, Soviet communism proved a failure in 
     Poland, and the people did everything they could to 
     undermine a system that became increasingly corrupt, 
     unworkable, and morally bankrupt. Given this history, it 
     is no surprise that the unraveling of the Communist system 
     in Europe began in Poland. Although we did not know it at 
     the time, the election of Pope John Paul II and the 
     formation of the Solidarity independent trade union in 
     Poland spelled the beginning of the end for the Cold War. 
     The momentum that began in Poland was furthered by the 
     people in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The rest of story 
     is, as they say, history.
       After breaking with the communist past, Poland, Hungary, 
     and the Czech Republic began an effort to re-enter the family 
     of democratic nations from which they had been unnaturally 
     separated in 1945. They transformed their economies from 
     state-run command systems, to free, open markets. They 
     reformed their political systems, reintroducing real 
     democracy, a free press, and civilian control of the 
     military. These changes have taken root and borne fruit--
     there have been a series of free and fair elections, and the 
     economies of all three nations are doing well. Poland, for 
     example, has the fastest-growing economy in Europe. Each of 
     these three nations has taken the initiative and solved its 
     outstanding border disputes and tensions. In short, Hungary, 
     Poland, and the Czech Republic have met the objectives we in 
     the West set for them as conditions for NATO membership.
       NATO enlargement will expand the borders of peace and 
     security. It will spread more evenly the burdens of defense 
     within the alliance. It will add to the ranks of our allies. 
     It will encourage those who want to reject politics based on 
     hatred, division, and spheres of influence. As Czech 
     president Vaclav Havel put it, NATO ``is first and foremost 
     an instrument of democracy intended to defend mutually 
     held and created political and spiritual values.'' It is 
     not an alliance aimed at an enemy, but ``a guarantor of 
     Euro-American civilization and thus a pillar of global 
     security.'' [New York Times, May 13, 1997.]
       The consequences of the U.S. Senate not ratifying NATO 
     expansion would be serious indeed. Hardline nationalists in 
     Bosnia, Belarus, Serbia, and elsewhere would be encouraged, 
     while friends of democracy and

[[Page S3622]]

     free markets would be disheartened. Furthermore, U.S. 
     interests would be severally harmed. We depend on stability 
     in the heart of Europe. An expanded NATO is the best 
     guarantor of that security. With NATO membership for the 
     Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, no dictator will ever 
     again dream of a central European empire based on force and 
     violence. We only need to remember the price the U.S. paid in 
     two major European wars and the protracted commitments of the 
     Cold War to understand how important this is.
       For Minnesotans, east-central Europe is of increasing 
     importance. The three NATO candidates have some of Europe's 
     fastest growing economies and many Minnesota companies are 
     doing good business in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech 
     Republic. The list of major companies with interests in these 
     three countries reads like a who's who of corporate 
     Minnesota: Cargill, 3M, Honeywell, Pillsbury, Land O'Lakes, 
     NRG. We can add to this many medium and smaller companies, 
     especially in the high technology area (many of which were 
     started by recent immigrants). Ask the officials of these 
     companies what NATO enlargement means for them.
       In just two weekends this summer we collected some 1,400 
     signatures of Minnesotans from all over the state on a 
     petition in support of NATO membership for Poland, Hungary, 
     and the Czech Republic. This was a grassroots effort 
     conducted by volunteers with little or no political 
     experience. Since then, there has been a flood of letter 
     writing, faxing, and calling to our U.S. Senators. One 
     senator supports NATO expansion, while the other is 
     officially undecided. The debate continues. Thus, it is 
     important that the state legislature make its voice heard on 
     this important issue, to tell the U.S. Senate that NATO 
     expansion is good for global security, good for America, and 
     good for Minnesota. I thank Rep. Jaros, and other state 
     legislators who have helped on this issue, for their good 
     work, and I urge members of this body to support the 
     resolution.
       NATO membership is the final step in the return of Poland 
     and its neighbors to their place as our allies. As President 
     Clinton recently noted, Poland is not a new ally for America, 
     but an old friend returning home.
                                  ____


Statement by Laszlo G. Fulop, in Support of Why Hungary Should Become a 
                              NATO Member.


  before the minnesota senate committee on government operations and 
                                veterans

       Mr. Fulop. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 
     appear in front of your committee and speak in support of 
     Hungary's--along with Poland's and the Czech Republic's--
     admission to NATO.
       Let me introduce myself: Laszlo G. Fulop, architect and 
     planner of Minneapolis, MN., representing the Minnesota 
     Hungarians.
       The question many of you have in mind is, Why should 
     Hungary become a NATO member? Before responding to this 
     question let me make a few brief remarks, that are pertinent 
     to this issue.
       Hungary has existed in Europe for over 1100 years, and of 
     those over 1000 was oriented to Western Europe. In the course 
     of this orientation she found herself in situations where she 
     fought for and defended the Christian culture of Western 
     Europe, often just by blocking great expansionist endeavors 
     from the East.
       Hungary also had a 200+ year interest in the United States. 
     Many Hungarians fought in the American War of Independence. 
     Indeed a Hungarian, Colonel Michael Kovats serving under the 
     famous Polish General Pulaski, organized the first US 
     Cavalry, while fighting for American independence. Later, 
     when the Hungarians fought for their freedom with the 
     Hapsburg empire in 1848-49 and declared their independence, 
     the new Hungarian Constitution was modeled after the American 
     Constitution of 1787. By the way, the Hapsburg forces were 
     able to put down that valiant revolution, only because they 
     asked for Russian help. A Russian army of 175,000 together 
     with the Hapsburg armies eventually subdued the Hungarians 
     fight for freedom. Unfortunately this intrusion was not an 
     isolated occasion.
       Until just 9 years ago East and part of Central Europe was 
     relegated to the Soviet Sphere of interest and even the US 
     conducted her relationship with the region through Moscow. 
     Since the defeat of Communism in 1989-90 the Czechs, Poles, 
     Hungarians, regaining their independence, had to overcome 
     great difficulties in their efforts to reestablish democracy.
       The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, initiated by Hungarian 
     Prime Minister Antall in 1990, along with the absence of 
     existing security guarantees has left a strategic vacuum in 
     the region. This effectively dissolved a bipolar world order, 
     and also changed the situation of European security. The 
     threat of nuclear war was replaced by much more limited in 
     scope, yet expanded in types of threats. Aggression in 
     Yugoslavia that went on unchecked for too long has shown just 
     one major cause why this vacuum has to be filled.
       The practical view of this membership: what's good in it 
     for me and what's in it for you? Let's look at a few areas:
     Security
       The Enlargement means expanded security for Europe, and for 
     the individual countries. It means ensuring common interests, 
     common values. NATO was never an aggressive organization, but 
     was an effective deterrent of active war. NATO always 
     professed to protect the ``status quo''. In this case NATO's 
     Enlargement simply means the ``eastward expansion of the 
     region of security and stability.''
       Hungary values its security, exactly because it had been 
     threatened so often during her history.
       Also a new security system seems to be evolving in Europe 
     that is based on cooperation and partnership and these are 
     driven by democracies in Western Europe. In orienting herself 
     to the West, it will be imperative for Hungary (and to Poland 
     and the Czech Republic) to participate in the economic, 
     political and security aspects of this newly evolving 
     mechanism. This will require modernization in more fronts, 
     including security.
       European stability is in the interest of the United States, 
     as well, as NATO has been one of the major guardians of that. 
     Today, it is still viewed in that role, and its enlargement 
     will simply expand the security enjoyed by the current NATO 
     countries, to establish conditions for peaceful, and 
     democratic development in the new member countries. This 
     enlargement is not viewed as pushing the military line 
     established during the Cold War further east, but to expand 
     the state of stability. A war in the area would cost the US a 
     great deal more both in political efforts and in military 
     spending than the costs associated with the NATO Enlargement. 
     These countries will mean a net gain for NATO and the United 
     States.
     Developing democracies
       Hungary also intends to become member of the EU, but, as 
     NATO has become more than just a military organization, HU 
     views NATO as complimenting her integration into the ranks of 
     western democracies.
       These three countries mean market, strong sources of 
     educated manpower, and devoted allies to the West in 
     political as well as on economical turf.
       The association with NATO provides a vision that can 
     galvanize people in these three countries (and hopefully 
     later with others) to achieve higher levels of co-operation 
     in areas of common concern and shared destiny. Collectively 
     these people will have a greater power to integrate their 
     future within this alliance. This is perhaps truer today than 
     it ever was before, and the recognition is becoming more 
     pervasive than before. Partially, the margin of vote (85.5%) 
     in Hungary attested to this recognition.
       The threat of a large scale military conflict is currently 
     not real, however, smaller scale conflicts can occur. Their 
     potential can never be ignored. For Hungary the upgrading of 
     military will be a costly affair, but it is estimated to cost 
     less over the same period than as if she had to provide for 
     her total defense alone.
       Since the reestablishment of democratic governmental forms 
     in Hungary, the military is under civilian control.
     Nature of concerns
       We are aware that some people are concerned about this step 
     of NATO and has urged a wide ranging discussion on this 
     topic. The main concern seems to be that this expansion will 
     ``. . . bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold 
     War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma . . .''. 
     It, however, appears that Russia's benefits from the enhanced 
     security adjacent to her borders are being recognized. 
     Serious attempts are being made to re-focus Russia's main 
     goals for the 21st century to the economic development front, 
     [see recommendations prepared by the prestigious Foreign and 
     Defense Policy Council which in its 1997 report came out and 
     said: ``Russia should not busy itself with the blocking of 
     enlargement but adjust itself within a short time to the new 
     situation as effectively as possible.'' Further, ``(if) 
     Russia does not want to completely withdraw from it (i.e. the 
     Central European region) economically, it must adjust itself 
     to the present economic and political conditions for the sake 
     of its own interests.]
       Additionally, NATO and Russia has worked out a unique 
     cooperative deal that did more for enhancing Russia's 
     diplomatic position in Europe than she could have hoped for 
     without the enlargement-issue being pursued. We also heard 
     from an authentic and very reliable source that the NATO 
     Enlargement issue is on the low end of concerns of Russian 
     citizen on a Moscow street. On the other hand, even the 
     customarily reserved Encyclopedia Britannica in ``The role of 
     NATO'' brands those trying to do away with NATO as ``neo-
     isolationists''.
       Finally, we also see this world as becoming more and more 
     globalized. Minnesota firms are doing business in Europe, and 
     increasingly in the Central European countries, as well. The 
     University of Minnesota has several student exchange 
     agreements with other countries including the Central 
     European countries. We believe the enlargement of NATO and 
     the attendant security will be but one step to insure 
     increased cooperation, and better understanding of people in 
     an atmosphere of enhanced security and stability.
       These are only a sampling of reasons why this action should 
     be supported. Indeed, President Clinton should be commended 
     for seeking solutions in an atmosphere conducive to stability 
     in Central Europe, and anchor security in this area while 
     there are problems in the Middle East. This creates a safer 
     environment for all of us.
       Therefore, we urge you to pass a supporting resolution to 
     this most important foreign policy consideration and express 
     your support to the United States Senate. Thank you for 
     allowing me to talk on this issue.

[[Page S3623]]

     
                                  ____
   Statement of Paulette Will in Favor of a Resolution Memorializing 
  Congress To Support the Admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
      Republic to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (HF 2417)


 minnesota house of representatives, committee on economic development 
  and international trade, January 21, 1998, Rep. Michael Jaros, Chair

       Ms. Will: Chairman Jaros and Members of the Committee, My 
     name is Paulette Will, I am President of the Minnesota 
     Czechoslovak Center and a partner in Bohemian Traders, a 
     Minnesota-based company importing leather bags from the Czech 
     Republic.
       Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the 
     Czech Republic's entry into NATO along with Hungary and 
     Poland. The Czech Republic is, as you probably know, a very 
     young country. On January 1, 1993 Czechoslovakia, founded in 
     1918, ceased to exist and the Czech Republic and Slovakia 
     became independent nations as a result of an agreement by 
     their respective governments the previous year. Before World 
     War II Czechoslovakia had a flourishing economy surpassed 
     only by France and Switzerland. Since 1938 the history of the 
     region includes occupation by the Nazis, loss of religious 
     and personal freedoms in the 1968 Prague Spring Soviet 
     crackdown, countless personal losses in terms of families 
     being torn apart from Czechs seeking freedom from an 
     oppressive regime and just this year both the Czech Republic 
     and Poland were struck by catastrophic rains and floods. 
     Today the Czech Republic has a population of 10.3 million 
     people. The country is strategically located in the center of 
     Europe and as such is in an ideal position for trade and 
     investment. Geographically, Prague is located to the west of 
     Vienna, Austria.
       According to the last Federal census in 1990 almost 100,000 
     people in Minnesota are of 50% or more Czech descent (87,748 
     Czech and 11,466 Czechoslovak) 238,039 are of Polish descent 
     and 12,349 are of Hungarian descent. Minnesotans of Czech 
     heritage are dispersed throughout the state with significant 
     concentrations in LeSuer (New Prague & Montgomery), Rice, 
     Steele, McCleod, Jackson, Pine, Polk, Pope, Renville and St. 
     Louis counties. Many German-Bohemians settled in Minnesota as 
     well, mostly in the New Ulm area.
       Recently, the Czech Ambassador to the United States, 
     Alexandr Vondra journeyed here in Minnesota. He said that 
     NATO membership would be the fulfillment of the ``century's 
     goal of the Czech state''. Here in the center of the United 
     States, Minnesota's business community is significantly 
     invested in the Czech Republic. NRG, a subsidiary of NSP is 
     the 5th largest investor in the Czech Republic where they are 
     building an electric power generating plant in Kladno. Other 
     Minnesota corporations with substantial business interests in 
     the Czech Republic include: 3-M, the Carlson Companies, 
     Ecolab, Honeywell, H.B. Fuller, Land O'Lakes, Midwest 
     Imports, Pillsbury, Radisson Hotels, Toro, Thermo-King and 
     many smaller companies such as mine. In the past eight years 
     all of Minnesota's major educational institutions have had 
     Czech students studying here and returning to work in law 
     firms, private industry and the media as many Americans have 
     lived and settled in the Czech Republic.
       But something curious is happening in the United States. 
     It's called isolationism. David Gergen said in a U.S. News 
     and World Report article, October 27, 1997 ``Americans from 
     boardrooms to college classrooms are embracing the rest of 
     the world as never before. Business people and students are 
     heading overseas  . . . while our political leadership is 
     staying at home. U.S. companies have increased their exports 
     by 40%, many now earning more than half of the revenue 
     overseas  . . . Not long ago, our public leaders personally 
     knew the chancellor of Germany and the prime minister of 
     Japan at least as well as the President did. In 1995, some 
     200 members of the German Parliament came to Washington, not 
     one member of Congress visited Bonn. The National Security 
     Caucus Foundation in Washington reports that one third of 
     today's Senate and House members do not even have passports. 
     Some American political leaders are signaling that it is time 
     to disengage from world affairs.'' This attitude has serious 
     long term implications, not least for Americans peace, 
     security and economic stability. For, like it or not, we are 
     a major player on the world stage and we are inevitably 
     called upon to defend freedom. No one wants to see Central 
     Europe remain isolated between the East and West. Central 
     Europe's security and economic interests are Europe, Canada, 
     America and Minnesota's security and economic interests. NATO 
     ratification is a simple vote to help guarantee civil and 
     safe societies.
       A few days ago, on January 18, NATO peacekeeper troops 
     surrounded key buildings in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     just hours after a deeply divided Parliament elected a 
     moderate Prime Minister for the Bosnic Serb Republic. NATO 
     peacekeepers also circled a ministry building in the eastern 
     town of Bijeljina. The Bosnia Serb conflict has cost billions 
     compared to the estimates for NATO expansion. The lesson to 
     be learned is simple; pay now or pay later.
       So, here in Central United States, I trust that the 
     Minnesota House and Senate will each enact resolutions 
     joining other State Legislatures around our country urging 
     the United States Senate to ratify the expansion of NATO to 
     include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

  Mr. GRAMS. In conclusion, Mr. President, this Resolution of 
Ratification provides the Senate with a historic opportunity to shape 
the strategic landscape of Europe.
  At the end of the Cold War, there was a lot of discussion about the 
``peace dividend''--the financial savings which would accrue from the 
end of the superpower rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. 
Well, the expansion of NATO reflects the true ``peace dividend''--the 
extension of a zone of security to codify the gains of freedom and 
democracy for three more nations and ensure that they will never again 
be encroached.
  Mr. President, the United States has a national security interest in 
assuring the stability of Central Europe. I am convinced that the best 
way to do that is to enlarge NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the 
Czech Republic.
  As Czech President Vaclav Havel, a man who I respect and admire, has 
warned, ``If the West does not stabilize the East the East will 
destabilize the West.'' Mr. President, we have an obligation to our 
troops stationed in Europe and to future generations of Americans to do 
everything in our power to make sure it is the West which stabilizes 
the East and war will never again be precipitated by a power vacuum in 
Central Europe.
  Mr. President, I will cast my vote in favor of expanding NATO to 
include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, recognizing that this 
is one of the most important votes that I will take in the Senate. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for allowing me about 
20 seconds. May I also say to the Senator from Minnesota, who has just 
spoken, and the Senator from Indiana that I subscribe to their remarks 
and appreciate the strength of their statements.
  Mr. President, the United States Senate today has the rare 
opportunity to right a historical wrong. In the years immediately 
following World War II, Europe was forcibly divided. As the United 
States helped to rebuild the nations of Western Europe, the nations of 
Central and Eastern Europe were subjugated under the heavy hand of 
Soviet domination. To counter this Soviet expansion into Europe, the 
United States and its Western European allies forged the most effective 
defense alliance in modern history, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. The military and political strength of this alliance made 
it the guarantor of an unprecedented period of peace in Western Europe 
and contributed significantly to the eventual demise of the Soviet 
Union.
  Today, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are free, and three 
of them--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--are seeking to take 
advantage of an opportunity denied them following World War II, the 
opportunity to join NATO, an alliance described by Harvard Professor 
Samuel Huntington as ``the security organization of Western 
civilization [whose] primary purpose [in the post-Cold War world] is to 
defend and preserve that civilization.'' It is my hope that the United 
States Senate will grant them this opportunity--an opportunity that 
these nations deserve and have earned.
  In the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these 
three nations have demonstrated a commitment to the Western ideals 
embodied by the NATO alliance. Their dogged pursuit of democratic 
institutions, free market economies, and human freedom will serve to 
remind the existing members of NATO what it means to be a part of the 
Western world. Indeed, their dedication to these ideals is all the more 
zealous because they know first hand what it is like to suffer under a 
regime that denies its citizens basic human freedom.
  The enlargement of the NATO alliance to include Poland, Hungary, and 
the Czech Republic serves America's national interests. The essence of 
the U.S. national interest in the world is promoting the security, 
well-being, and expansion of the community of nations that respect 
their citizens' democratic rights. Although this is a moral policy, it 
is not an entirely altruistic one. The freedom, prosperity, and 
security of Americans--our standard of living and

[[Page S3624]]

our domestic civil liberties--all are enhanced and bolstered when this 
community of free nations grows bigger and stronger, especially when it 
does so in Europe, where our closest allies and our most profound 
interests are concentrated.
  The enlargement of NATO will also send a clear message to any power 
who may wish to interfere with the ongoing process of democratization 
in Europe: you will not succeed, so do not even try.
  I know that the enlargement of NATO will not be free. Clearly, 
additional financial resources will be required on the part of all NATO 
members--old and new alike. These new costs must be shared equitably by 
all allies. Although enlargement will ultimately require an increased 
financial commitment by the United States, I believe that the 
substantial dividends that will accrue to the U.S. from enlargement 
justify our strong support for this endeavor.
  I urge my colleagues to support the admission of Poland, Hungary, and 
the Czech Republic to NATO, so that, as Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright recently noted, ``three nations who have long been our allies 
in spirit will become our allies in fact.'' It is the right thing to 
do, and it serves our national interest.


                           Amendment No. 2310

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2310.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In paragraph (1) of section 3, after ``(1) The strategic 
     concept of nato.--'' insert the following:
       (A) Policy of the united states toward the strategic 
     concept of nato.--The Senate understands that the initial 
     adaptation of NATO's strategy for the post-Cold War 
     environment is contained in the Strategic Concept of NATO (as 
     defined in (1)(E)), and that its core concepts remain 
     relevant today as the North Atlantic Alliance approaches the 
     21st century. The Senate understands that the policy of the 
     United States toward the revised Strategic Concept shall 
     reflect that fact and shall be based upon the following 
     principles:
       (i) First and foremost a military alliance.--NATO is first 
     and foremost a military alliance. NATO's success in securing 
     peace is predicated on its military strength and strategic 
     unity.
       (ii) Principal foundation for defense of security interests 
     of nato members.--NATO serves as the principal foundation for 
     collectively defending the security interests of its members 
     against external threats.
       (iii) Promotion and protection of united states vital 
     national security interests.--Strong United States leadership 
     of NATO promotes and protects United States vital national 
     security interests.
       (iv) United states leadership role.--The United States 
     maintains its leadership role of NATO through the stationing 
     of United States combat forces in Europe, providing military 
     commanders for key NATO commands, and through the presence of 
     United States nuclear forces on the territory of Europe.
       (v) Common threats.--NATO members will face common threats 
     to their security in the post-Cold War environment, 
     including--
       (I) the potential for the re-emergence of a hegamonic power 
     confronting Europe;
       (II) rogue states and non-state actors possessing nuclear, 
     biological, or chemical weapons and the means to deliver 
     these weapons by ballistic or cruise missiles, or other 
     unconventional delivery means;
       (III) threats of a wider nature, including the disruption 
     of the flow of vital resources, and other possible 
     transnational threats; and
       (IV) conflict in the North Atlantic area stemming from 
     ethnic and religious enmity, the revival of historic disputes 
     or the actions of undemocratic leaders.
       (vi) Core mission of nato.--Defense planning will reaffirm 
     a commitment by NATO members to a credible capability for 
     collective self-defense, which remains the core mission of 
     NATO. All NATO members will contribute to this core mission.
       (vii) Capacity to respond to common threats.--NATO's 
     continued success requires a credible military capability to 
     deter and respond to common threats. Building on its core 
     capabilities for collective self-defense of its members, NATO 
     will ensure that its military force structure, defense 
     planning, command structures, and force goals promote NATO's 
     capacity to project power when the security of a NATO member 
     is threatened, and provide a basis for ad hoc coalitions of 
     willing partners among NATO members. This will require that 
     NATO members possess national military capabilities to 
     rapidly deploy forces over long distances, sustain operations 
     for extended periods of time, and operate jointly with the 
     United States in high intensity conflicts.
       (viii) Integrated military structure.--The Integrated 
     Military Structure of NATO underpins NATO's effectiveness as 
     a military alliance by embedding NATO members in a process of 
     cooperative defense planning and ensuring unity of command.
       (ix) Nuclear posture.--Nuclear weapons will continue to 
     make an essential contribution to deterring aggression, 
     especially aggression by potential adversaries armed with 
     nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. A credible NATO 
     nuclear deterrent posture requires the stationing of United 
     States nuclear forces in Europe, which provides an essential 
     political and military link between Europe and North America, 
     and the widespread participation of NATO members in nuclear 
     roles. In addition, the NATO deterrent posture will continue 
     to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any potential aggressor 
     about the nature of the response by NATO members to military 
     aggression.
       (x) Burdensharing.--The responsibility and financial burden 
     of defending the democracies of Europe will be more equitably 
     shared in a manner in which specific obligations and force 
     goals are met by NATO members.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, again, thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution calling upon the 
Senate to advise and consent to the ratification of the Protocols of 
the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary 
and the Czech Republic.
  This is an important debate, an important week for this Chamber, for 
this country, for our alliance with our friends in Europe and, indeed, 
for global security. I appreciate very much the quality of the debate 
and the thoughtfulness of it as it has proceeded this afternoon. I must 
say that I am honored to be part of this debate and grateful to my 
constituents in Connecticut for giving me the chance to do so.
  It is a debate that looks backward and forward, and its significance 
goes in both directions.
  Looking backward in our history and in the history of Europe, it 
could well be said that the enlargement of NATO to now encompass these 
first three countries that lived under Soviet domination is a 
ratification of the end of the cold war. It is a validation that we 
have learned the lessons of that war.
  Looking forward, it is, in my opinion, and respectfully, directly at 
odds with those who oppose expansion and spoke earlier this afternoon, 
it is the best step that we can take to protect and sustain the peace 
and freedom that now has broken out across the European Continent. So I 
appreciate very much the opportunity to participate in this debate.
  Mr. President, there are three principles, three values, three ideas, 
three purposes that I want to speak about this afternoon in supporting 
NATO enlargement. They are freedom, collective defense and the 
promotion of peace. Each of those three, I think, speaks powerfully on 
behalf of the need to enlarge NATO, on the wisdom of that move.
  I want to speak particularly about freedom, because that principle 
may be lost in the strategic discussions and in the practical and 
tactical concerns that people in the circle may have about the effect 
of NATO enlargement.
  Freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American. Freedom 
is at the heart of the American experience, and it is at the center of 
NATO and the NATO experience. The quest for freedom is what drove the 
founders of our country here, and they, in turn, were motivated by 
their faith, by their own quest for personal freedom and by the 
understanding their faith gave them that they expressed at the very 
outset of the Declaration of Independence, that all of us are created 
equal and we are blessed with certain rights--life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness--not by any assemblage of our fellow human beings, 
legislators, lawyers, philosophers, but we are endowed with those 
rights to freedom by our Creator. Freedom, the pulsating, motivating 
principle of the American experience, expressed in the declaration, 
fought for throughout our history, fought for particularly in this 
century in two great and terrible wars in Europe.

[[Page S3625]]

  After the second of those, when another threat arose to freedom in 
Europe from Soviet communism, the leaders of the Western European 
countries and the leader of the United States at that time, President 
Harry Truman, saw the need to come together in a military alliance, 
NATO, to protect what had been won, the freedom that had been won 
during the Second World War and to try to roll back the advance of 
tyranny and communism that had begun to occur in Europe under Soviet 
domination.

  That is what NATO is all about. Yes, I understand it is a military 
alliance, but it is a military alliance in defense of a principle, and 
that principle is freedom, individual human dignity and worth, as 
expressed in our Declaration, as I described a moment ago.
  Political freedom, religious freedom, the right to express oneself, 
the right to pursue one's own economic well-being without being 
dictated to by a central government--that is what NATO is about, a 
military alliance in defense of a principle. And that is what the cold 
war was about, not just a clash of blocs or power groupings; it was a 
great clash of ideas.
  Freedom against tyranny, the right of the individual against the 
right of the state to dictate to the individual; state-controlled 
economy against market economies. And freedom won, individual dignity 
won, market economies won. It is a remarkable story whose heroes are 
numberless, the soldiers in NATO who stood guard over those decades of 
the cold war, the proud and effective leaders of the Western 
democracies, the people who understood what was at risk and stood side 
by side in defense of these principles.
  In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union began to collapse, 
and the countries that lived under its domination, not just the people 
of Russia, among whom there are so many heroes who brought this about, 
but the people in the constituent countries of the former Soviet Union 
who had lived under tyranny, whose national identities had been 
temporarily erased, at least from public expression, certainly not from 
within their own conscience, whose right to worship as they wished had 
been suppressed and stifled, whose drive to better themselves by 
working to build a better life for their family, to profit, to achieve 
success was undermined, was crushed by the power of the bloated 
bureaucratic Communist state.
  Those people who were suddenly freed, freed by the collapse of the 
Soviet Union, understood what the cold war was about, understood it was 
about freedom and understood what NATO is about. That is why they have 
come to us to ask for inclusion.
  After all those years of living in effective slavery, they have 
turned to us and said, ``By the grace of God and good leadership and 
faith, now we have the opportunity to express our national will, our 
individual selves to be free, to prosper,'' and they have turned to 
NATO and not to the European Union, as some of my colleagues would urge 
them to do, because they understand what the past was about and what 
the future is going to be about.
  Yes, NATO is a military alliance, but it is a military alliance in 
defense of a principle, which is freedom, and freedom and security 
precede commerce.
  Of course, inclusion in the European Union is important. But these 
countries now knocking at the door of the family of freedom, asking to 
become members of our community of freedom, they understand the 
significance of NATO.

  (Mr. GRAMS assumed the Chair.)
  And for us, who for years during the cold war would speak out across 
the Iron Curtain that dropped in the middle of Europe and say to the 
people in the suppressed countries--we used to call them the people of 
the captive nations; they were captives --``Rise up. Be strong. Have 
faith. A day will come when the Soviet Union will collapse or be 
defeated. You will have your opportunity to be free and we will welcome 
you into the community of free nations.''
  That is what they are asking. Will we now turn our backs on them and 
the principle, the idea, the value of freedom that motivated us 
throughout the cold war and motivates them today? I hope not. I do not 
think so. I do not believe we will.
  Mr. President, collective defense is the second reason why we ought 
to expand the NATO alliance to embrace these three nations and keep the 
door open for others as they meet the tests, the standards.
  NATO, from the outset, was a military alliance to provide for the 
collective defense, to protect member nations from attack from an 
outside enemy. It was started quite clearly as a defensive alliance 
against Soviet aggression. We had hundreds of thousands of troops in 
Europe ourselves to protect our allies and ultimately ourselves from 
that danger.
  Now, times have changed. Fortunately, the threat of aggression from 
the East is not there. Some say that an alliance, a military alliance 
can only last as long as the threat that engendered it. Now that that 
threat is gone, some say NATO really ultimately will dissipate.
  Well, would that it were so that there were not threats in the world 
that should tie the member nations and those who choose to be added to 
NATO together in common defense. My colleagues have mentioned them. I 
will only repeat them very briefly. Today, the threats may be more from 
the south of NATO than from the east, from weapons of mass destruction, 
from terrorism, from threats via ballistic missiles.
  We may well--hopefully soon--work with our allies in NATO to form a 
regional missile defense to protect member nations from the threats 
posed by the high-tech war that we and our allies face.
  So I would say, unfortunately, though security is greater than it was 
on the European Continent during the cold war, there is still much to 
worry about. A strong NATO, working together, surely can provide a 
better defense against those common enemies than nations alone.
  In fact, Mr. President, though the NATO treaty, as originally 
stated--article V--talked about each member being obliged to defend and 
protect member states who might be attacked, it talked about focus on 
conflict within the area that is NATO. Clearly in our times some of 
those threats may come from outside--threats to security of the member 
nations.
  It was not so many years ago--it was 1990 and 1991--when Saddam 
Hussein drove his Iraqi Army into Kuwait, threatening not just the 
independence of that small country, but the energy supply on which not 
only we but our European allies and others depend. The gulf war, 
Operation Desert Storm, was not explicitly a NATO action, but it was 
surely NATO in the experience that we had together within NATO. That 
was not only the place on which the defense and counteroffensive 
against Saddam could be fashioned and formed, but it was where over 
those many decades we had learned to work so well together.

  So, in fact, I view the enlargement of NATO in our time, the post-
cold war time, as the best step that the United States can take to 
bring others to share our burden of world leadership. We say repeatedly 
we are not going to be the policemen of the world, but the fact is that 
we are the world's only remaining global superpower, and responsibility 
and interests come with that.
  Our alliance in NATO is a place in which we can find allies to share 
the burden when a threat affects the security of the United States and 
other member nations of the NATO alliance and organization. The three 
nations that seek accession to NATO, Hungary, Poland and the Czech 
Republic, have already helped us in Bosnia and elsewhere. Some helped 
during the gulf war. They add 200,000 troops to the NATO forces on the 
European Continent, providing hope that less will be asked of the 
United States, or at least we will only be asked in a more 
proportionate way when these three nations and perhaps others in the 
future are added.
  The third reason why I support this resolution so strongly, Mr. 
President, is the promotion of peace. That is to remember that NATO 
from the outset was never just a defensive alliance. It was always an 
organization which was aimed at promoting peace among its members, not 
just to bring its members together in alliance to protect them against 
outside threats. But acknowledging the war-torn history of Europe, 
feeling still the pain, the sting, the horror of the two World Wars 
that preceded it, NATO was formed to create an organization in which 
common interests could be stressed, yes, through

[[Page S3626]]

military alliance, but through the sharing of opportunities and 
challenges. It has worked magnificently in that regard, and it will 
work even better in this post-cold war period to bring nations formerly 
under Soviet domination in Central and Eastern Europe within that zone 
of peace, within that community of which peace will be promoted and 
conflict will be avoided. That is the record of the now almost five 
decades of NATO in terms of the amity, the civility, the cordiality of 
the relations among previous enemies, now members, of NATO, and it will 
continue to play that role as we expand NATO to other countries on the 
European Continent. The fact is that it has already begun to happen in 
anticipation of this effort to accede to NATO membership of the three 
we are focused on today. And other nations hoping for NATO membership 
have begun to resolve long-standing conflicts.
  The conflict between the Hungarians and the Romanians comes to mind. 
That is the drive--the momentum will be on the side of conflict 
resolution among the member states of NATO and those who choose to 
become members in promoting peace on the European continent and again 
learning the lessons of the war-torn history of Europe.
  Mr. President, a final word about Russia. It is from within Russia 
that the Soviet Union and communism that I have spoken of and the 
denial of freedom began. It is from within Russia under the historic 
progressive leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev and from within the hearty 
and heroic band who resisted tyranny even as it began to rear its head 
again after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It is from within Russia 
that this historic change began.
  It began, as I said earlier, and occurred because of the 
steadfastness, the sense of purpose, the heroism of people in the NATO 
alliance and Western Europe and the United States, and it began after a 
long period of suffering by those who lived within Russia and within 
the member states of the former Soviet Union under Soviet domination.
  It has to be a central tenet of priority of our foreign and defense 
policy to develop good relations with Russia. We have worked mightily 
at that. But I must say, as I hear some of those who oppose expansion, 
enlargement of NATO, who are prepared to blame enlargement of NATO on 
anything that goes wrong in Russia, I simply cannot accept that 
prediction. Those who foresee the most dire consequences of NATO 
enlargement, including, as some have suggested here, the heightened 
possibility of nuclear war--I simply do not see it. These arguments in 
some ways seem more psychoanalytical than geopolitical, more 
psychological than strategic.
  Yes, I know that Russia has struggled and has much work to do. I 
simply echo and embrace by association the comments of the Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Lugar, on this course. The fact is that Russia has come 
some distance in spite of the challenges it has faced. It has sustained 
a democratically elected government. It has fought off attempts to 
create denials of freedom within the country. If there is a threat to 
the continued movement forward of freedom within Russia, if there is a 
threat that will somehow raise the possibility of nuclear conflict with 
Russia, it is not the enlargement of NATO.
  I must say, as I speak to members of the Russian Government and 
private citizens, including businesspeople and think-tank people, I 
know there are some in the political community who are opposed to the 
enlargement of NATO, but honestly I do not find it to be the priority 
of concern that some on this floor have suggested.
  The fact is, as the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, said, every 
poll I have seen taken in Russia shows that the people list NATO 
enlargement far down in their itemization of concerns they have about 
Western behavior. Think about how we and our people would feel if we 
were in Russia. What would be more important to us--that NATO is about 
to accept Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic into this alliance or 
that I am not getting my paycheck for working at the shipyard, or I am 
not getting my pensioners' check as a retired person, or my children's 
education is not as good as it used to be? Those are the things that 
the Russians are focused on. Those are the threats to stability if it 
exists within the Soviet Union. Those constitute the ground in which a 
more aggressive and warlike leadership might--I hope never will--but 
might arise again in Russia, not NATO enlargement.

  It simply, respectfully, does not make sense to me that that is the 
case. I have said before we have worked hard at building good relations 
with Russia. The Founding Act creates an institutionalized relationship 
between Russia and NATO that some feel actually goes too far. I think 
it is appropriately balanced.
  The relationship between President Clinton, President Yeltsin, Vice 
President Gore, former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and presumably the 
new Prime Minister Kiriyenko, is very strong. If we have had a 
shortcoming in our policy, in our post-cold war reaction to Russia that 
may have squandered an opportunity, which is a phrase that one of those 
who opposed NATO enlargement spoke about earlier, it is not to enlarge 
NATO, it is that we did not rush in early enough and broadly enough to 
help the Russians build their economy in the period after the Berlin 
Wall fell.
  There were some great voices at that time--late President Nixon, most 
prominently at that point, speaking to the historic opportunity we had. 
The truth is what we delivered was timid, was weak, was insufficient. 
If we squandered an opportunity, it was at that moment when, as some 
said, we might well in our own self-interest have adopted the 
equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Russia, encouraging and creating 
incentives for American businesses to go over and invest there and 
create opportunity. Not enough of that has happened. Very little of 
that has happened. It is in that neglect that we planted the seeds that 
might--again we hope and pray never will--grow into a less democratic, 
more aggressive Russian, but not NATO, enlargement.
  Let us come back to this. So much of the opposition to this 
enlargement is based on the effect it will have on Russia. That is what 
I said earlier, and I say respectfully, this becomes an argument more 
in psychoanalysis than in geopolitics or reality. NATO is a defensive 
alliance. NATO has no hostile intent on Russia. Does Russia fear 
military aggression from Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland? Of 
course not. So why do we yield to what we see or fear may be the 
opposition within Russia to the enlargement of NATO? When we do that, 
when we yield, we do something far more damaging. That is, we forget 
the principle I spoke about at the beginning, which is freedom. We 
forget what Winston Churchill said about that Iron Curtain falling in 
the middle of Europe. We forget what Harry Truman spoke to us when he 
joined in the creation of NATO, as he watched the Soviet threat in 
Europe against freedom. We forget what President Kennedy did at the 
Berlin Wall in the confrontation of Berlin in the 1960s. We forget what 
President Reagan said about the evil empire. Why was it evil? Because 
it denied its people freedom. And we forget we fought that cold war 
over an arbitrary, dictatorial, unnatural division in Europe which 
denied the principle of freedom, the line Stalin forced in Europe.
  So will we now, because of our fear--strange for a victor, the 
world's global superpower, to have such fear--will we now redraw that 
line by shutting people in Central and Eastern Europe out of the 
community of free nations? I don't believe we will. I am confident that 
more than the necessary number of our colleagues here in the Senate 
will see the historic opportunity we have to validate the end of the 
cold war, to uphold the principle on which it was at fault, and to 
create the conditions for peace and security in Europe among the member 
nations of NATO as those members expand and together between them, in a 
free, secure, and strong Russia.

  Mr. President, I close with words of one of the heroes of the century 
and certainly the heroes of the post-cold-war period, Vaclav Havel, who 
wrote almost a year ago in the New York Times, May 13, 1997:

       The [NATO] alliance should urgently remind itself that it 
     is first and foremost an instrument of democracy, intended to 
     defend mutually held and created political and spiritual 
     values. It must see itself not as a pact of nations against a 
     more or less obvious enemy, but as a guarantor of Euro-
     American civilization and, thus, as a pillar of global 
     security.


[[Page S3627]]


  That is what this debate is about. I look forward to the dialog as it 
continues this week. It is a critically important debate, and I hope 
that we will join it directly and not hesitate to speak forcefully but, 
of course, respectfully to one another. That much is at stake here.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am happy to have this opportunity to 
rise and discuss some of the ramifications of the proposed expansion of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A number of issues have 
received attention, and it is appropriate that we focus on those issues 
and give them very, very close scrutiny. The cost of enlargement, for 
instance, deserves our attention; the political and strategic benefits 
or deficits that of new NATO members deserves our attention; and 
finally, the effect of NATO expansion on the relationship of the United 
States with the Soviet Union deserve the Senate's full attention.
  But while all these issues are important, I think in some respects 
they divert inquiry into a fundamental issue regarding NATO's future, 
and that is, ``What is the purpose of the organization?'' Is the 
purpose of the organization being altered inappropriately? Is it being 
transitioned away from that for which it was initially called into 
existence?
  The expansion of NATO and the question about whether it should or 
should not be expanded is significant. But defining the purpose of the 
organization is even more significant.
  I just might, in an aside here, mention that I am not sure we can 
redefine NATO. One of the most serious questions I raise is, Is it 
possible for NATO to be redefined without the redefinition being 
subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate? If a treaty, once 
it is enacted and ratified by the United States, could then be changed 
without the U.S. Senate again offering its advice and consent, we would 
never need but to enter into one or two treaties, and then, 
subsequently, administrations could transfer, transition, enlarge, 
subtract, or shrink the treaty in accordance with the particular 
foreign policy strategy of the moment. A treaty's purpose might be 
distorted from defense to trade, or otherwise changed, if it is 
possible to change a treaty without being subject again to the Senate' 
advice and consent.
  Now, we obviously find ourselves, with the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, looking at a treaty designed to protect the member states 
from a hostile foreign invasion. The Soviet Union no longer exists. 
There are nations that were a part of the Soviet Union that now exist, 
but we find ourselves with a significantly different configuration of 
forces and challenges to the United States. Challenges to the member 
states of NATO are different than they were when the treaty was called 
into existence in 1949.
  So I think it is important now for the U.S. Senate--which is, if you 
will, the quality control organization as it relates to U.S. treaties--
to ensure that U.S. treaty commitments are not expanded inappropriately 
and the American people are not subjected to obligations that have not 
been approved through the proper constitutional processes. The U.S. 
Senate has a role of assessing the quality of treaties as they proceed 
through the Senate before the Senate's imprimatur of approval is given.
  Here we stand at this moment in time debating perhaps the most 
successful collective defense organization in the history of the world, 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO still stands, although the 
specific threat for which it was created has disappeared for the time 
being. We have to ask ourselves at this juncture, ``What is the purpose 
of the treaty?'' Would some try to change the purpose of the treaty? Is 
it appropriate or possible to change the treaty, without amending the 
treaty, just by beginning to lean everyone in one direction, to turn 
the treaty to one side or another, or begin to assert that there are 
new things to be considered because the treaty is evolving?
  I have to say to you, Mr. President, I don't believe in treaty 
evolution anymore than I believe in the evolution of the Constitution. 
If you could just evolve treaties, as I said, U.S. treaty commitments 
would seldom have to be brought before the Senate. In this case, NATO 
would be evolving and going on its way, entangling this country with 
potentially serious obligations which place in jeopardy the lives and 
fortunes of those who serve in our armed forces and those who support 
the military. I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow 
treaties to simply evolve.
  It is interesting to me that as we work to address where NATO is and 
the purpose of the organization, that we be clear about what it is 
supposed to do. What is interesting to me is that there is a group of 
individuals who now say that NATO is totally different than the 
organization created in 1949.
  I want to call attention to this idea that NATO, which was once 
designed to protect individuals in the North Atlantic area, is now, 
according to a number of people, becoming an organization with a global 
scope. Expanding the scope of NATO has serious ramifications: if the 
responsibility of NATO is no longer confined to specific territory, but 
now is global in nature, the kinds of required military devices, the 
kinds of technology, the kinds of cooperation, and the expenses are 
going to be massively different.
  Here is what the immediate past U.S. Secretary of Defense, William 
Perry, said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 
the 19th day of March of this year:

       The original mission of NATO--deterring an attack from the 
     Soviet Union--is obviously no longer relevant.

  Well, I would say the Soviet Union might be reconstituted, or there 
certainly might be a threat, but we will give him that much.
  The original geographical area of NATO responsibility is no longer 
sufficient'', Mr. Perry continues.
  Sufficient for what? It is sufficient for the people who live in that 
area. NATO helps secure the homes and livelihoods of people in the 
North Atlantic area.
  Mr. Perry states, The original military structure of NATO is no 
longer appropriate.
  We are going from a military alliance to something else.
  He says:

       The new missions--

  I am taken aback. ``New missions''? How can a treaty organization 
ratified by the U.S. Senate, in place for 50 years, all of a sudden 
have new missions, new purposes?
  Mr. Perry continues, ``The new missions of NATO should be preventive 
defense--creating the conditions for peace in Europe.''
  Mr. Perry refers to Europe--not NATO member nations. There are a 
number of nonmember nations in the European area. All of a sudden, we 
are expanding beyond the concept of a group of individual countries who 
have agreed to defend themselves to the projection of a peace guarantee 
on an entire continent.
  Mr. Perry continues, ``The geographical area of NATO interests should 
be anywhere in the world * * *''
  Mr. President, that is a substantial change. That is a significant 
departure. This is not the traditional understanding of NATO. This is 
not in the language of the original treaty. This is an effort to make 
NATO a worldwide organization. ``* * * anywhere in the world where 
aggression can threaten the security of NATO members.''
  I wish to emphasize that we need to be very careful about anybody who 
threatens the security of NATO members. But what does this 
administration mean when it makes statements endorsing a global NATO? 
We don't have to rely on the former U.S. Secretary of Defense for 
guidance on that question. We can go to the current Secretary of State. 
According to the Washington Post, Secretary Albright ``also has urged 
that an expanding national North Atlantic Treaty Organization must 
extend its geographic reach beyond the European continent and evolve 
into a `force for peace from the Middle East to Central Africa.' ''
  I think it is only fair that we go beyond focusing on three new 
members in Eastern Europe. If a new mission is really what we are 
talking about, if this is what the intention is, the change here is far 
more than adding three new countries. The transformation is a shift 
from the defense of territory--specified and outlined with

[[Page S3628]]

clear boundaries--to an organization whose impact will be worldwide. 
According to the Secretary of State NATO should be a ``* * * force for 
peace from the Middle East to central Africa.''
  If what the Senate is really considering here is the transformation 
of NATO's mission, then I think it requires us to ask, ``Is this what 
was intended when this NATO agreement came into existence? Was it 
designed to have this kind of elasticity? Was it designed to evolve, as 
an ameba does, changing shape with different circumstances to fill any 
void? Not according to the folks who presided in the U.S. Senate in 
1949 when this great treaty organization was ratified.
  Listen to the words of Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee at the time: ``Let us not forget that this 
treaty is limited in scope. Its main purpose is to maintain the peace 
and security of the North Atlantic area. We do not propose to stretch 
its terms to cover the entire globe.''
  It is interesting to consider these comments by Senators from the 
past. ``We do not propose to stretch its terms to cover the entire 
globe'', stated Senator Connally. His statement offers a striking 
contrast to the language of a globalist NATO offered by officials from 
this administration. This administration is now supporting the 
expansion of NATO to three new members, but is also presiding over an 
incredibly significant transition in the scope and shape of the 
organization itself.
  In NATO, the United States was making a calibrated commitment. We 
joined NATO and considered the possible deployment of U.S. forces with 
the utmost caution. In 1949, our Congress was not about to deploy U.S. 
forces willy-nilly around the world. The collective defense mission of 
NATO was defined explicitly in article V, and I quote: ``The parties 
agree that an armed attack against one or more of them''--of the 
parties, of the member nations--``in Europe or North America, shall be 
considered an attack against them all * * *''
  Collective defense was meant to respond to an attack on the United 
States or another NATO ally. This was an attack on the member nations 
in Europe within their borders. The allies would then take such action, 
according to article V, as each ``deems necessary'' to restore the 
peace for those member nations.

  The geographic scope of the article V commitment was defined 
explicitly in article VI to make sure there was not any confusion. In 
article VI, we made it clear. It said the United States would defend 
the territory--territory of NATO members--not the interests, not the 
commercial transactions, but the territory of the NATO members.
  The geographical scope of Article 6 included the Mediterranean Sea 
and the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
  Article V says if you are attacked, you are to respond to the attack. 
Article VI has the sort of precision of a real estate transaction, 
specifically stating where the territory was and how it was to be 
defended.
  Article IV of the treaty is seen by some now as an escape hatch for 
expansion of NATO's mission. Article IV of the treaty states: ``The 
parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them 
the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any 
of the parties is threatened.'' Terms like ``territorial integrity'' 
and ``political independence'' and ``security'' flow from and reinforce 
NATO's collective defense mission.
  As I will argue in more detail, undergirding NATO's collective 
defense mission was the purpose of article IV. Article IV was not a 
loophole for any military operation the North Atlantic Council could 
dream up.
  One of the things I think the Senate should consider carefully is the 
expansion of NATO, not just by membership but by mission--from the 
defense of territory to the defense of interests, which is the 
direction in which things are pointed. If we go from defending 
territory to defending interests and following those interests, as 
Secretary Perry indicated and Secretary Albright has indicated, to 
remote locations on the globe, that threatens some of the very 
essential purposes of NATO. If you squander defense resources or if 
your forces are so thinly deployed, it can be very damaging and 
undermining to the capacity to respond to a real security threat.
  It would be terrible to think that we would have our forces so far-
flung that we could not respond to a real security threat. I have to 
say this: Right now the administration is so willing to deploy U.S. 
troops and so unwilling to provide resources for the military that we 
are stretching our resources very thin. If we want to put ourselves in 
real jeopardy by stretching them thinner, we should change the mission 
of NATO so that we become an international policing organization 
effectively answering 911 calls anywhere around the world. Secretary 
Perry says anywhere around the globe. Secretary Albright says in the 
Middle East and throughout central Africa.
  The United States is extending defense commitments to these three new 
potential NATO countries while slashing its defense resources--a 27-
percent cut in defense spending over the last 8 years. We need to be 
very careful. If your defense spending is falling and your defense 
deployments are rising, you have very low resources to meet high 
commitments, placing yourself in serious jeopardy.
  Most Americans have agreed we have to have an ability to fight at 
least in two regions. If we cannot fight in two regions, and if we get 
into any kind of a struggle somewhere, it is an invitation for an 
aggressor somewhere else to start something. I mean, after all, if we 
were involved in the Middle East and we only had a capacity to defend 
one area, that would be the only area we could defend. It would invite 
rogue regimes, dictators, to be involved somewhere else pretty quickly. 
North Korea might decide to send its people over the border en masse. 
So the United States has to sustain the capacity to fight in two 
regions.

  John Hillen writes in the National Review that we are losing that 
kind of capacity.

       In 1998, almost all the active Army's heavy-tank and 
     armored-cavalry units outside of Korea and Bosnia would have 
     to go to the Persian Gulf in order to equal the fighting 
     power of America's VII Corps in 1991. And the VII Corps was 
     only one of three American corps engaged in Desert Storm. In 
     other words, it would take all the fighting materiel we have 
     to make up one of the three corps that were fighting in 
     Desert Storm. Given the fact that we have the commitments we 
     have in both Korea and Bosnia, we have to be careful we don't 
     hollow out the force. And expanding the mission, broadening 
     the range of deployments, expanding NATO from the defense of 
     territory to the defense of interests could further hollow 
     out our armed forces.

  Here's how NATO expansion will increase U.S. security commitments.

       Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic comprise 301,000 
     square miles of new NATO territory and 2,612 miles of new 
     NATO frontier to which the collective defense commitment is 
     extended.
       Total national defense spending fell by 27 percent over the 
     last 8 years.

  If we are going to be a part of defending this new territory, I 
wonder about whether we can do it with a plummeting rate of investment 
in national defense.

       Outside normal training and alliance commitments, the Army 
     conducted 10 ``operational events'' between 1960-91, and 26 
     since 1991.

  There you have it. We are sending our troops all over the world, and 
you wonder if we can do that without hollowing out the force when we 
have a 27 percent drop in our funding.

       The Marine Corps conducted 15 ``contingency operations'' 
     between '82 and '89, and 62 since the fall of the Berlin 
     Wall.

  We are sending our people all over the place and we are not funding 
them the way we really should.

       According to the Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer, the 
     Army reduced manpower by 36 percent while increasing the 
     number of deployed operations by 300 percent.

  Can you forever shrink your resource base and increase your 
deployment?
  President Reagan's Deputy Undersecretary of Defense states:

       Like Gulliver's enfeeblement by the Lilliputians, [the 
     U.S.] will be tied down in so many parts of the world for so 
     long that it will be hard-pressed to respond to the major 
     threats against which only overwhelming force would prove 
     effective.

  I think the point I want to make here is we have to be very careful 
in expanding the mission, changing the mission of NATO from a defense-
of-territory to a defense-of-interest mission, projecting deployments 
in central Africa and

[[Page S3629]]

a wide variety of other places, as Secretary Perry indicated, around 
the globe. Are we making sure we have the necessary defense resources 
in the event there is a real security challenge? If we are stamping out 
brushfires on the other side of the world, can we defend ourselves 
against a firefight in our own backyard?
  These are the kinds of things that I think are important. I don't 
think this administration has made very serious strategic assessments 
about NATO expansion. ``We must pledge that the first new members will 
not be the last,'' according to Secretary Albright, ``and that no 
European democracy will be excluded because of where it sits on the 
map.'' In other words, come one, come all. We are not going to make 
strategic judgments. In the real world, real soldiers die defending 
real borders.
  I intend to ask the Senate to make a clear statement on the mission 
of NATO, a mission that is a defense of territory, not just a defense 
of interests. I know that Senator Roberts of Kansas and Senator Warner 
of Virginia have expressed their interest in this respect. We need to 
pass an amendment that will make sure that the Senate will not be 
endorsing what I call ``treaty creep,'' where we just allow a creeping 
mission to get us to the place where we are no longer able to sustain 
those things which ought to be sustained.
  It is with that in mind that I will be offering an amendment which 
would be added to the resolution of ratification. I hope that Members 
of the Senate will take into account the importance of understanding 
that we cannot dilute the capacity of the United States to defend its 
own freedom and to fulfill its collective defense commitment in NATO by 
making the breadth of this treaty so broad that it becomes a second 
United Nations, except this time with a standing army. NATO should not 
become an organization whose forces can be deployed and put at risk 
inappropriately and unduly in a wide variety of settings not defined by 
the territory of the members of the North Atlantic area.
  It is with that in mind that I look forward to submitting the 
amendment and defending the opportunity to place in the resolution of 
ratification clear language which will define and reassert the only 
valid definition of NATO, its original purpose, which was the defense 
of territory, political independence, and security of member states in 
that particular organization.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the matter of NATO expansion is perhaps 
the single most important foreign policy or defense issue to come 
before Congress this year. Because of the complexity of the issues 
involved, the importance of this decision, and its implications for our 
relationship with Russia, I have not rushed to judgment on this 
subject. Today, however, I would like to explain why after careful 
consideration, I have decided to support NATO expansion.
  The past half-century has shown the cardinal importance of American 
engagement in European affairs. Throughout the Cold War, our 
involvement in Europe, principally through NATO, helped provide a 
crucial framework of peace and stability in which the countries of 
Europe have been able to develop--giving them breathing room in which 
to leave behind wartime devastation and grow into prosperous trading 
partners and allies. Today, of course, the Cold War has ended. The 
importance of U.S. involvement in Europe, however, has not.
  With the end of the continent's artificial division along the inter-
German frontier into hostile ideological blocks, the meaning of 
``Europe'' has changed and its role in the world has evolved. If they 
are to have relevance in this new post-Cold War era, institutions built 
around Europe's previous divisions must also evolve, or else face 
creeping irrelevance. NATO may not be important to the world in 
precisely the way it used to be--as a breakwater against Soviet 
expansionism--but the cooperative security arrangements it embodies 
remain vital to European stability and to world peace.
  Mr. President, NATO stands without peer in modern times as an 
institution capable of effective, coordinated international action in 
times of crisis. More important still, however, is the Alliance's much 
more quiet, everyday role as the ultimate underwriter of European 
peace, providing a supportive framework within which allied democracies 
can successfully consolidate themselves after difficult periods of 
transition and become valuable friends and partners in the best sense 
of these words. NATO expansion to incorporate the newly-liberated 
countries of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic will help ensure 
that the Alliance remains an important guarantor of continental peace 
and stability in the years to come--and that America continues to play 
an engaged and productive role in European security.
  I do not mean to suggest that NATO expansion has no costs, or that I 
am entirely sanguine about its potential implications.
  I have been extremely concerned both about the anticipated financial 
costs of NATO expansion and about its potential impact upon U.S.-
Russian relations.
  With regard to the costs of NATO to the American taxpayer, I have 
discussed my concerns with both Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen and 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In particular, I have been very 
concerned about the great variation in cost estimates given during the 
last year or so, estimates that have ranged from a total of $35 
billion, or even more, over the next 10 years to a total cost of a 
relatively small $1.5 billion, with the United States share of that 
$1.5 billion being approximately $400 million.
  As both Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright have pointed out to 
me, the highest estimates anticipated expanding NATO to four countries, 
rather than three, and were not based on information now available 
about the condition of Eastern Europe's military infrastructure. I am 
thus greatly encouraged by NATO's most up-to-date financial estimates 
which were based upon an intensive country-by-country survey of the 
Polish, Czech and Hungarian defense establishments.
  This latest study, the methodology of which has been endorsed by the 
General Accounting Office as well as by the Department of Defense, 
indicates that the likely costs of NATO expansion are much lower than 
had been previously estimated.
  Mr. President, this study does not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. 
The shrinkage of the official cost estimates since early 1997, in fact, 
represents movement along a learning curve, and the pleasant surprise 
of discovering, after much analysis, that Eastern European militaries 
are in much better shape than previously thought is largely responsible 
for much of the change in the estimate.
  There will certainly be costs to military modernization in Poland, 
Hungary and the Czech Republic, but most of these expenses will be 
borne by the new member countries themselves. Of the remainder, we will 
share the burden with our present NATO allies through our proportional 
contributions to the NATO common fund. All told, these expenses will 
not be significant compared to the benefits we will all reap from 
ensuring NATO's continuing role in securing European peace and security 
and stability.
  With respect to U.S.-Russian relations, I have also been encouraged 
by the progress of our extensive Partnership for Peace Program with 
Moscow and of our mutual efforts to ensure that Russia's decaying 
strategic nuclear infrastructure remains secure against terrorism, 
theft and accident. Today, Russian and NATO diplomats sit together to 
discuss mutual concerns on a permanent joint council convened for this 
purpose. U.S. nuclear experts work very closely with Russian 
authorities in protecting the security of Russia's nuclear 
establishment.
  Significantly, these crucial cooperative efforts with Russia have 
continued and even accelerated as NATO expansion has become more 
imminent. Most recently, the Russian Government announced in mid-April 
that it will push very hard to persuade the Duma to ratify START II 
strategic arms reduction agreement with the United States. These are 
not the hallmarks of a government preparing for a ``new cold war'' if 
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join our alliance. To the 
contrary, U.S.-Russian relations have been growing warmer, even as NATO 
has been preparing to expand.

[[Page S3630]]

  I look forward, in fact, to seeing Eastern Europe develop a whole new 
continuum of productive relationships with the United States and the 
West, links that range from formal NATO military ties to expanded 
Partnership for Peace relations, to ever more important economic and 
cultural ties.

  The Europe of the 21st century will not be one of haves and have-nots 
when it comes to transnational ties. Rather, it will be a Europe bound 
together in a mutually reinforcing web of different but complementary 
relationships stretching across the entire spectrum of public affairs. 
This is a Europe to which we should look forward with eager 
anticipation, and it is one in the creation of which NATO expansion to 
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic can play an important role.
  It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that after careful 
consideration and much deliberation I shall cast my vote in favor of 
NATO expansion. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Mexico.