[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 50 (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3745-S3749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the treaty.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to 
engage in this debate over the proposed expansion of the NATO treaty. 
It is an important occasion for this body, for our country, and for the 
shape of the post-cold war world. To quote Emerson, who had in turn 
been quoted by the great American statesman Dean Acheson about the 
dawning of the post-World War II era, ``we are present at the sowing of 
the seed of creation.''
  It is a debate which has properly engaged the best minds in American 
foreign and national security policy. George Kennan, the architect of 
the successful ``containment'' strategy with which NATO won the cold 
war, has said,

       Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American 
     policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may 
     be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and 
     militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an 
     adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to 
     restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West 
     relations; and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions 
     decidedly not to our liking.

  That is the quote of Mr. Kennan. My predecessor, and someone whose 
views on national security matters I most value, former Senator Sam 
Nunn, has said, ``NATO expansion makes our security problems more 
difficult,'' and Senator Nunn cowrote a recent magazine article with 
former Senator Howard Baker, Alton Frye and Brent Scowcroft which 
states that, ``by premature action on new members, the Senate could 
condemn a vital alliance to creeping impotence.''
  On the other hand, the architect of America's detente strategy, Henry 
Kissinger, testified to our Senate Armed Services Committee that,

       Failure to expand NATO is likely to prove irrevocable. 
     Russian opposition is bound to grow as its economy gains 
     strength; the nations of Central Europe may drift out of 
     their association with Europe. The end result would be the 
     vacuum between Germany and Russia that has tempted so many 
     previous conflicts. When NATO recoils from defining the only 
     limits that make strategic sense, it is opting for 
     progressive irrelevance.

  And Zbigniew Brzezinski, with whom I served in the Carter 
Administration, has testified that,

       NATO enlargement has global significance--it is central to 
     the step-by-step construction of a secure international 
     system in which the Euroatlantic alliance plays the major 
     role in ensuring that a peaceful and democratic Europe is 
     America's principal partner.

  Mr. President, these are strong and important words from some of our 
country's premier experts on international relations, and of course 
they point the Senate in diametrically opposite directions in the 
current debate. However, and I will return to this point later, in my 
view they all raise the right questions and ultimately can help point 
us in the right direction as we take up the critical questions of 
whether NATO and whether Europe will remain with us regardless of what 
we do on the pending resolution of ratification. Though I certainly 
acknowledge the importance of the impending decision, I would counsel 
that we not engage in exaggeration or hyperbole about the consequences 
of this single choice. It is but the first, and in my opinion probably 
not the most important, question we must answer as we feel our way in 
this unknown ``new world order,'' and no one, and certainly not this 
Senator, knows for certain how the future will unfold in Russia, or in 
the rest of Europe, for that matter.

  So I welcome and I appreciate the thoughtful commentary which has 
been submitted on both sides of this issue. I have benefited from it, 
and I certainly believe that neither side has a corner on wisdom or 
concern for our future security. In this same spirit, I would like to 
thank the distinguished Majority Leader for responding to two requests 
I made, one in a letter I co-signed with a number of other Senators on 
March 3, and the other in a personal

[[Page S3746]]

note I sent to him on March 25, that he delay final Senate action on 
the resolution of ratification to allow for more debate, and for more 
information to be obtained on several important policy questions. While 
I thought, and think, that for a variety of reasons, it would be better 
to delay this vote until the beginning of June, I appreciate the 
postponement he did arrange because it allowed me to make my own 
``inspection tour'' of Europe to assess the situation there in person 
on the ground.
  I have just completed a twelve day, 12,000 mile tour of Europe. My 
travels took me to London, Camp Robertson, V Corps Headquarters and 
Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, and NATO Headquarters in Belgium. 
They also took me to Eagle Base in Bosnia-Herzegovina. On my trip, I 
tried to get a realistic look at our Western alliance as we approach 
the end of the 20th Century. Our relations with our European allies, 
particularly through NATO, are of special importance to the United 
States. As I have already indicated, the issue of NATO expansion to 
nations formerly a part of the Warsaw Pact, especially the pending 
proposal to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in NATO, 
is of paramount importance as we consider the crucial matter of the 
future of the Western alliance in this body.

  During my journey, I also attempted to get a feel for the disposition 
and readiness of our military forces in Europe, and the attitude and 
morale of our troops deployed on our expeditionary mission to Bosnia.
  Any attempt at gaging the temperature of our NATO alliance must begin 
with a sense of European history. President Kennedy once said that the 
thing that he cherished most in the White House was ``a sense of 
history,'' and the thing he feared most was ``human miscalculation.'' I 
had the same feeling as I toured Europe. In order for us to not 
miscalculate in terms of our diplomatic and military policy in these 
areas, we must have a sense of history of the region. Winston Churchill 
once observed about the value of history that, ``One can not know where 
one is going unless one knows where one has been.'' This is certainly 
true in Europe.
  To illustrate the lessons of history, I have in mind a trip I took to 
the Waterloo battlefield in Belgium made famous by Napoleon's encounter 
with the Duke of Wellington there in 1815. In addition to some 
fascinating lessons regarding battlefield tactics which created 48,000 
casualties in one afternoon, I gained some other valuable insights 
which I think are instructive as we approach the NATO expansion debate.
  One lesson that I learned was that although Napoleon had great 
loyalty from his band of seasoned veterans who had marched with him 
through the various Napoleonic wars which had plagued Europe until 
1815, by the time of Waterloo he was actually outnumbered 3 to 1. 
Europe had finally coalesced against him. At a crucial moment in the 
battle, it was a Prussian commander who brought his forces from as far 
away as Austria and Germany to come decisively to the aid of 
Wellington. The Prussian commander massed his forces to help Wellington 
defeat Napoleon's Grand Armee and the Napoleonic Guards. The lesson for 
me is clear. Europe has been swept over by one conqueror or another 
ever since Roman Times. But, when European nations form a strong 
alliance, they can defeat any enemy.
  I think this is an important lesson in history to apply to our 
present day understanding of Europe, particularly in terms of our NATO 
alliance. In this century from time to time, Germany, then Russia, has 
tried to dominate Western and Eastern Europe. Each time, alliances were 
formed against the hostile force. NATO, the most successful European 
alliance in history, will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary next year. 
It is not surprising to me that Western Europe, primarily because of 
NATO, has seen its longest extended peace in centuries.

  Another lesson of history I learned on this trip was the importance 
of American leadership in helping Europe form alliances that protect it 
from invasion without and turmoil within. It was after all a British 
leader across the channel, Wellington, who acted as a catalyst to lead 
the disparate nations of continental Europe to defeat Napoleon. That 
was in the last century. This century, it has been an ally across the 
Atlantic, America, who has led the disparate nations of Europe in an 
alliance to defeat those who would conquer it. Beginning in World War 
I, throughout World War II, during the Berlin Airlift, and, finally, 
through to the conclusion of the Cold War, America has been a catalyst 
in bringing European nations together to defend and protect our shared 
interests. American leadership and American guarantees of security with 
commitment of our forces on the ground in Europe has provided what one 
French diplomat called an ``insurance policy'' that if things go wrong 
on the continent ``America will come.''
  As America approaches the close of this century and the dawn of the 
next, our nation finds itself fully engaged, committed and involved in 
the life of Europe. Our diplomats, politicians and military forces are 
stretched over the continent. They provide a level of diplomatic clout 
and military force projection second to none. America in this part of 
the world is looked upon as an honest broker in dealing with age-old 
European factional disputes. The security and stability in Europe since 
WWII principally guaranteed by NATO is the prime reason Europe is the 
number one trading and investment partner of the United States today. 
Increasingly, as the European Union develops, forms its own currency 
and expands its influence into Eastern European countries, it will 
become the largest economic trader and investment block on the planet. 
As America enters into the 21st Century, we will have an opportunity to 
expand our trans-Atlantic trading and investment partnerships to an 
extent hitherto unknown to us.
  Make no mistake about it, this opportunity for record economic 
growth, and the opportunity to spread the gospel of free market 
economics and the benefits of trade, travel and commerce, has come 
about because European states, and especially newly independent Eastern 
European nations, now perceive themselves at the dawn of a new era of 
peace and stability. They are, indeed, ``present at the sowing of the 
seed of creation.''

  Russia has imploded. The Soviet Empire is no more. Where Russia goes 
from here is anybody's guess. Churchill once described Russia as ``a 
riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.'' The mystery of where 
Russia is headed is still with us. We in this country and our European 
allies wish our Russian friends well. Through the Partnership for 
Peace, the Founding Act and other entities, we as a matter of policy 
want to pursue a future based on cooperation rather than conflict. As a 
democracy ourselves, we in the United States wish the Democratic 
movements in Russia Godspeed. As a market economy, we believe our type 
of economic freedom, which brings with it the blessings of growth and 
opportunity, will sooner or later take hold in Russia as it has in 
other parts of the world. Democratic notions such as the rule of law, 
civilian control of the military and human rights now penetrate the 
thickest of barriers and the strongest of curtains. We know, too, it 
will take time for these principles to grow naturally in Russia. Many 
of us feel strongly that Russia will sooner or later make it through 
this very difficult transitional period. No one knows, however, how 
long that will take.
  Whatever the future of Russia, the future of Eastern Europe is more 
and more clear. One of the most powerful messages I received on my trip 
is that there is a new era of hope and opportunity dawning in Eastern 
Europe. Long denied by the Cold War, a host of Eastern European 
countries now see an opportunity for their moment in the sun. This is 
particularly the case for the states who have been invited to join 
NATO--Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. A short time ago, the 
Parliament in the Czech Republic overwhelmingly voted to join NATO. As 
the vote was declared, the entire body stood up and applauded. As the 
great 19th Century French writer Victor Hugo observed, ``An invasion of 
armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.'' The 
nations of Eastern Europe are emerging into the light after fifty years 
of the Cold War. The notion that they and their people can enjoy the 
stability and prosperity experienced by Western Europe is an idea whose 
time has come.
  Certainly, one of the great challenges currently facing NATO is the 
issue of

[[Page S3747]]

Bosnia. On my recent trip, I had the marvelous opportunity to fly on a 
helicopter to an American outpost--Camp Bedrock--in Bosnia on Easter 
Sunday.
  It was near Tuzla in Northeast Bosnia. While flying over the 
countryside, it seemed I was watching a colorized version of a World 
War II documentary about war-torn Europe. I saw portions of villages 
burned to the ground. I had not seen such devastation since I was in 
Vietnam thirty years ago. On my visit, I got a chance to visit American 
forces in Bosnia. I found them surprisingly cheerful and confident in 
their mission of peace-keeping in that war-weary countryside. I'm very 
proud of our forces. They are paying a personal price every day in 
risking their lives on our behalf.
  When I returned from my trip, I received an e-mail from one of the 
servicemen I spent Easter Sunday with in Bosnia. He wrote:

       My name is First Lieutenant Brian Brandt. We met today and 
     shook hands in the mess hall here on Eagle Base, Bosnia. I 
     would like to thank you for visiting and sharing in our 
     Easter Mass . . . The greatest burden on today's soldiers is 
     being asked to do more with less and our frequent deployments 
     away from home. I am an OCS graduate and have 14 years of 
     service. In this time I have seen many good and bad things 
     within our services. As we move into the next century I hope 
     we don't find ourselves short. No amount of peace or 
     technology can make up for an Army of over tasked and under 
     trained soldiers. Please carry this message with you to 
     Congress.

  A few days after I visited Camp Bedrock, I was in Brussels. An 
American businessman approached me and asked me if I had ``hope'' about 
Bosnia. I had to reply, ``Yes.'' I have hope because I believe Europe 
has learned some painful lessons over the last two centuries. One of 
those lessons is that alliances--whether against Napoleon, Hitler or 
Stalin--can win. Secondly, I have hope because Americans have learned 
some lessons about European history as well. Particularly, I think 
we've learned one of the lessons about American involvement on the 
European continent. The lesson is this: ``Pay me now, or pay me 
later.'' In other words, we as a nation are involved in Europe--
militarily, economically, culturally. Better to get in on the takeoff 
before it turns into a ``crash landing!'' Better to work through the 
European Alliance, in particular through NATO, to prevent a conflict 
than to risk that conflict turning into a greater confrontation or, 
even worse, war itself.
  The European community proved incapable of reaching the necessary 
consensus to act decisively in Bosnia. The U.N. tried to control the 
tensions but was neither trained nor equipped for the task, even though 
a limited number of European nations were supportive. Finally, under 
American leadership NATO stepped in. With its command and control 
systems well established, with its alliance relationships previously 
worked out over the years, it was able to field a stabilization force 
which has succeeded beyond the wildest expectations for it. In Bosnia, 
the NATO alliance now works with non NATO members, including Russia for 
a combined alliance of 37 nations.

  That's why the killing has stopped.
  That's why troops and tanks have been disarmed.
  That's why minefields are being dismantled.
  That's why refugees are returning.
  That's why elections are being held.
  That's why war criminals are being identified and hauled before an 
international tribunal. That's why further excesses of any warring 
party--as in Kosovo--bring immediate international outrage.
  That's why those who perpetrated war are now hunted down and 
discredited.
  That's why political moderates are coming to the fore and condemning 
the extremists.
  The effort in Bosnia involves the largest alliance of nations ever to 
coalesce against a common enemy on the continent of Europe. Maybe we've 
learned and acquired a sense of history after all.
  I applaud all the members of the alliance for their contributions to 
peace and stability in Bosnia, particularly the NATO members, and 
especially the Russians, for coming together in a unified effort to 
prevent further bloodshed, enhance stability and pave a pathway for 
peace. I hope it is a harbinger of good things to come in the next 
century in terms of enhanced cooperation and communications among our 
countries for the betterment of mankind.
  I especially want to applaud our American servicemen and women and 
their American military commanders who are working to bring peace and 
stability in Bosnia. They are working in a tasking and demanding 
environment filled with diplomatic and military minefields. Special 
thanks go to General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, who came with his wife and joined me for Easter Sunday services 
with the troops in Tuzla. He joined me and Congressman Patrick Kennedy, 
a respected member of the U.S. House National Security Committee, for a 
very special Easter Mass in a Catholic Chapel. A particular 
responsibility rests on the shoulders of U.S. General Wes Clark, the 
top NATO Commander. His diplomatic and military skills have been tested 
to the maximum, and have been put in full play to hold the NATO 
Alliance together militarily in a challenging environment in the 
Balkans. A dear friend and a great Georgian, LTG Jay Hendrix, commands 
the U.S. Army V Corps out of Germany. He faces the daunting challenge 
of deploying and replacing the troops in the Bosnian expedition. 
General Eric Shinseki is the overall commander of all military forces 
on the ground in Bosnia. He has a tough task in Sarajevo. Major General 
Larry Ellis is the ``muddy boots general'' on the ground in Tuzla who 
musters the morale of all of his forces, and is doing a great job in 
the American sector. All of the men and women involved in this effort 
are a credit to the United States, the European Alliance and the cause 
of human dignity and freedom in the Balkans. I am proud of them all. I 
will support continued funding of their efforts to bring peace and 
stability to this troubled part of our world.

  A proper consideration of the issue of NATO expansion requires 
consideration of American, as well as European, history. As I discussed 
earlier, the leading voices on American foreign policy currently offer 
divided counsel on this issue. It is obvious that no clear consensus 
has yet formed as to America's post-Cold War strategy.
  This lies in stark contrast to previous eras in our history when our 
approach to the world has generally been guided by a unifying vision. 
In our earliest days, we were galvanized by seeking to gain our 
independence. Then Manifest Destiny took hold as we boldly expanded 
westward into frontier country. During the same time, the Monroe 
Doctrine guided our relations with Europe and Latin America. This 
period was interrupted by the Civil War and the painful Reconstruction 
Era. As the United States entered the 20th Century and Americans turned 
toward commerce, the industrial revolution made its biggest impact on 
American economic development. This Gilded Age saw the rise of the 
Labor movement, the Depression and set the foundation for the New Deal.
  Throughout all of this time, it would be fair to sum up our general 
philosophy on foreign policy as an attempt to continue to follow 
President Washington's recommended approach, contained in his Farewell 
Address of September 17, 1796:

       Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. 
     Cultivate peace and harmony with all . . . The Nation which 
     indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual 
     fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its 
     animosity or to its affection, either of which is 
     sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its 
     interest . . . Steer clear of permanent alliances, with 
     any portion of the foreign world . . . There can be no 
     greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors 
     from nation to nation.

  That approach changed when, following the two great 20th Century 
world wars and alternating cycles of isolationism and engagement, 
America emerged as the major global economic and military power. We 
then became united around the fight against Communism which, in the 
form of the Soviet Union, posed the only grave threat to our physical 
survival we have ever faced. The Cold War guided our thinking, and NATO 
was the main military expression of that strategic vision.
  Now we are in a new era. No one has quite coined the term for it. 
Some call it the ``New World Order,'' but I prefer to call it The Age 
of Democracy. What I find different and indeed magical

[[Page S3748]]

about this new era is the fact that while it brings with it the spread 
of democracy and democratic principles around the world to places that 
have been burdened by tyranny, it is doing so not through the threat of 
force, but through the promise of peace. However, thus far we are not 
in consensus on how we shape our national security policies to meet the 
challenges of the new era.
  I believe the critics of the proposed expansion of NATO are right 
when they focus on the need for policies which draw Russia into 
cooperation rather than confrontation with the United States and the 
West. From the control of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons 
proliferation to containment of Saddam Hussein, to the termination of 
the Cold War legacy of Mutual and Assured Destruction, the 
participation and cooperation of Russia is of vital importance in 
securing this peaceful Age of Democracy which we are entering.
  I also believe the critics are right that we are going to have to be 
extremely careful in when and how we approach consideration of 
inclusion of the Baltic states and former Soviet Republics in NATO or 
any other unified military command structure.
  And, over the long-term, I believe the critics are right that it is 
the expansion of the European Union, and its ultimate promise of what 
Churchill called a ``United States of Europe,'' which offers the 
strongest foundation for Eastern European economic and political 
development, and for Europe at long last being able to be fully 
responsible for its own security.
  However, after much reflection and after having seen the ``ground 
truth'' on my recent trip, I have concluded that supporters of NATO 
expansion are absolutely correct that other than NATO there is no 
entity at present which is able to step up to the plate and fill the 
security void that currently exists in Central Europe. The European 
Union is currently considering the proposed admission of six nations, 
including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, plus Slovenia, Cyprus 
and Estonia, but that process is likely to take until 2003, at the 
earliest. Furthermore, the Union has a number of important questions, 
such as its decision-making process and the division of sovereignty 
between it and its component nations, which must be worked out before 
it can offer an effective voice on foreign and defense policies.
  As for Russia, I believe we must make every effort to seek 
cooperative and mutually beneficial relations. Regardless of how the 
Senate votes with respect to the pending treaty, I believe supporters 
of NATO enlargement are correct that we and the Russians will have the 
same set of mutual interests to work for; namely, the non-proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction, and stability around Russia's borders 
in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. We should see what the future 
brings in Russia, with the European Union, and with all of the former 
members of the Warsaw Pact before we decide the next steps with respect 
to NATO, including both its membership and mission.
  It is in this context that I as a member of this body consider the 
issue before the Senate of expanding the NATO treaty to include the 
nations of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. For a long time I 
have asked myself the question, ``Can we afford it?'' As a member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, I've heard witness after witness 
question the wisdom of expanding NATO, particularly at this time and 
especially in terms of the painful transition going on in Russia today. 
I have also heard NATO enlargement questioned from a budgetary point of 
view in terms of its cost to American taxpayers. In the wake of what 
I've learned on my trip, however, I now ask myself, ``Can we afford not 
to do it?''
  I've concluded that Russia will do whatever it is going to do. We can 
encourage cooperation. We can support democratic principles and human 
rights. We can move forward with arms control agreements, especially 
Start II and move on to Start III. These are critical items on the 
American agenda, and critical items on the Russian agenda as well. We 
must move forcefully in expanding consultation and cooperation on all 
these fronts.

  But, we in this country must heed the call of the Eastern European 
nations for help in fulfilling their destiny. Their destiny is with the 
West, as is Russia's destiny one day. In my view, the expansion into 
the Eastern European community by the Western European community 
through the expansion of NATO, and a gesture of cooperation to the 
Russians through the Partnership for Peace and the Founding Act is a 
plus, not a minus, for our national security. The good news is that so 
many people in Eastern Europe and Russia want to identify with the 
West. They want the peace and prosperity offered by Western European 
ideas and values and Western European organizations. It is for this 
reason that I intend to vote for NATO expansion. I believe, as Prime 
Minister Tony Blair said in going to Northern Ireland after I had a 
brief meeting with him, ``I feel the hand of history on my shoulders. I 
have hope. I have faith. I don't know how it will work out, but I must 
try.''
  No one can know for certain how NATO expansion will work out, and I 
certainly believe we must make our future decisions based on what 
experience teaches, but in this current decision I think the hand of 
history is on our shoulders. I think we must work in faith and hope. I 
think we must try. I don't know how the future of Russia will unfold, 
but I think it is important for the Western community of nations led by 
the United States, in the spirit of friendship and cooperation, to 
reach out in faith and hope to the Eastern European nations, and try to 
help them create a new future for themselves.
  On my recent trip, I visited an American battlefield cemetery. The 
place was the famous Flanders Fields Cemetery in Belgium. It was a 
Canadian, Colonel John McCrae, who wrote the famous poem about World 
War I, ``In Flanders Fields.'' Colonel McCrae was later killed in that 
War. But he challenged all of us for the rest of this century to live 
up to the hope that the soldiers in that war had that their sacrifice 
in bringing peace and stability in Europe would not be in vain. As I 
laid a wreath at the cemetery, I thought of all those in this century 
since World War I who have given their lives for peace and prosperity 
in Europe. I support the pending NATO enlargement as a further 
expansion of a peace process that began with American involvement in 
World War I at Flanders Fields, and continues until this day. Surely we 
have learned some lessons of history this century that will keep us 
from miscalculating. Surely we do not want to repeat the mistakes of 
this century in the next.

  Mr. President, I learned many lessons on this trip. The most 
important lesson I learned, however, is that American men and women 
deployed in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans are making a 
positive difference in the lives of millions of people in those parts 
of the world. Our American diplomats, soldiers, sailors, marines, 
airmen, guardsmen are our greatest asset. They spread American values 
and ideals wherever they go because they treat people with dignity. 
They talk the talk. They also walk the walk.
  More than anything I learned on my trip, Mr. President, is that the 
legacy of American involvement in Western and Eastern Europe in this 
century has been a courageous and positive one. It is because of our 
people who have given their lives and risked their reputations this 
century in the cause of peace, stability, freedom, human rights, the 
rule of law, civilian control of the military, economic justice and 
democratic ideals that America plays such a strong hand in diplomatic 
and military missions throughout Europe. That story is not lost on 
nations further East, including Russia and the newly independent states 
of the former Soviet Union.
  I returned from my trip to Europe and Bosnia even more proud of my 
country and our ideals than when I left. As a new century dawns, I'm 
sure Americans will learn from history and not miscalculate. At this 
moment in history, we are the key players in the progress of a European 
Alliance, especially NATO, and we should be a key player when the 
Alliance expands into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. While I 
believe we must constantly seek emerging answers on such key questions 
as the security situation in the Baltic States, the evolution of the 
European Union, the political situation in Russia, and the impact on 
the readiness of American military forces, and should be prepared to 
guide our future policy choices based on those answers,

[[Page S3749]]

 I support the proposed first round of NATO expansion. As the only 
currently available alternative, I also support funding for a follow-
on-force in Bosnia. As our troops and diplomats do their duty, they can 
count on support from this Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from 
Georgia, Senator Cleland, for that excellent statement. I have listened 
to a lot of the debate on NATO enlargement. He gave a tour de force by 
covering not only the nations of Europe but the history of Europe. I 
congratulate him on an excellent statement. I fully endorse his 
conclusion.

                          ____________________