[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3845-S3847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that Daniel G. 
Groeschen of Senator Inhofe's office be extended floor privileges for 
the remainder of the NATO debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

[[Page S3846]]

  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding to me.
  And I say to my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
I doubt whether, with the exception of two or three other people in 
this body, there are as many people who know about the defense budget 
as my friend does. And I want to say at the outset, what I am about to 
say is--I say this with all sincerity--I am a little bit confused about 
the two amendments.
  Let me be very specific. The first amendment--I should get the 
numbers correct of the amendments. Amendment No.--I think it is 2066--
that is the amendment that speaks to two things, one, a sense of the 
Senate regarding the common-funded budget or put another way--and I 
agree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that it is--we 
are instructing the President to negotiate down the percent that we, 
the United States, contribute to the common budgets of NATO. I think 
that is appropriate. I think that is necessary.
  In 1950, the percent of the common budget that the United States paid 
was roughly 50 percent. And in the only renegotiation that took place, 
that was cut in half and went down to approximately 25 percent. The 
Senator knows better than I do, there are three common budgets. They 
are slightly different in terms of percentages, but essentially it is 
25 percent. And it should be lower, in my view. I thank him for making 
it a sense of the Senate rather than a condition to passage of the 
treaty.
  The second part of that amendment states--and I have a little 
difficulty with it, but I am prepared to accept it on our side--it 
says--and I quote on page 2, line 19:

       Annual Limitation On United States Expenditures For NATO. 
     Unless specifically authorized by law, the total amount of 
     expenditures by the United States in any fiscal year 
     beginning on or after October 1, 1998, for payments to the 
     common-funded budgets of NATO shall not exceed the total of 
     all such payments made by the United States in fiscal year 
     1998.

  Now, that means, as I understand it, because a lot of our colleagues 
who do not spend as much time on these issues because of their 
committee assignments as the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from 
North Carolina, the Senator from Delaware--we are on committees that 
have these responsibilities--are somewhat confused, as I am, when we 
start talking about HCFA and a whole range of issues relating to the 
Department of Health and Human Services.

  The common budget of NATO are all those expenditures which all 16 
NATO members have to pitch in to pay for. Now, above the common budget, 
we have in the past, and we will continue in the future, I expect, 
expend dollars on--military dollars, State Department dollars, Defense 
Department dollars--on NATO member countries that are not part of a 
common budget.
  For example, as the Senator knows better than I do, we have come up 
with subsidized sales of weapons systems to Greece or to Turkey. We 
have done the same in terms of cascading down weapons we are no longer 
using to other NATO countries. They do not fall within the common 
budget; they are expenditures of American taxpayer dollars on European 
countries that are members of NATO.
  The way this amendment I am referring to would work, as I understand 
it, if in the year 1998 the United States of America spent $10--I am 
going to make this easy for me--$10 contributing to the common budget 
of NATO, that is, it represents 25 percent of all the expenditures, and 
all of NATO spent $40 on the common budget, we spent $10, in the year 
1999 or 2000, we would be limited to spending $10 toward the common 
budget even if the total common budget went up to $110 because we would 
only be able to spend $10, which would represent a lower percentage 
than our 25 percent unless the authorizing committees in question 
specifically authorized the additional expenditures.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. I think it is unnecessary, but I have no objection to that 
amendment.
  Now, the second amendment, the number of which I am not going to even 
try to guess, because I will mess it up, but the second amendment is 
more direct--not more direct--is shorter and straightforward. It says--
do I have a copy of it here? It says:

       Requirement of payment out of funds specifically 
     authorized. No cost incurred by the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) in connection with the admission to 
     membership, or participation, in NATO of any country that was 
     not a member of NATO as of March 1, 1998, may be paid out of 
     funds available to any department, agency, or other entity of 
     the United States unless the funds are specifically 
     authorized. * * *

  Now, the phrase ``no cost incurred by NATO'' by definition, as I 
understand it, means only one thing, the common budget--the common 
budget.
  Now, if the chairman is concerned that we are going to, out of U.S. 
taxpayers' dollars, spend money on a new NATO admittee, Poland, let us 
say, that is not part of the common budget by saying, ``You know, NATO 
has agreed we're going to extend a runway in Warsaw'' or wherever we 
are going to do it. That is a common budget requirement. NATO must pay 
for that. It is not the national defense budget of Poland that pays for 
that. Since all of NATO is going to use it, we all are going to pay for 
it.

  On the other hand, if you want to buy F-15 aircraft, we, the United 
States, will sell them to you under a Foreign Military Sales Act which 
is subsidized. We will be taking taxpayers' dollars, subsidizing the 
Polish military, if we sell them under the Foreign Military Sales Act. 
That is not out of the common budget.
  Now, if what the chairman is trying to capture is those kinds of 
expenditures that exceed the common budget, I understand that, and I 
will support that, requiring a specific authorization. But if he is 
talking about any common budget expenditures by NATO, I see no 
distinction, by requiring a specific common budget expenditure that 
falls under the $10 ceiling, because we will be limited by the first 
amendment to spending no more than $10 the next year.
  If, in fact, we require no specific authorization to extend the 
runway in Germany, and if it is a common budget investment and a NATO 
investment to extend a runway on German land for a NATO facility, and 
we don't have to have a specific authorization to do that as long as it 
doesn't exceed the cap of $10 total spending, then I don't understand 
why we would have to have a specific authorization to do the same exact 
thing with an equal member of NATO--assuming Poland is admitted--in 
Poland. It is not doing anything other than meeting a NATO obligation 
we will have had to sign on to.
  Secondly, if I am right--and I may not be, because I may not 
understand the second amendment--when I read the phrase, ``No cost 
incurred by NATO in connection with admission of new members''----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am more than happy to put into the 
second amendment, which is 2065, the phrase, ``other than common funded 
budgets of NATO.''
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to accept the amendment if the Senator 
does that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no intention, if the Senator will yield further, 
to cover the issues--he is talking about the one that puts a cap on the 
1998 expenditures--unless authorized by law. The other one is intended 
to cover those costs where I believe the United States is going to 
venture out and say we will do this.
  We have had that experience with the expenditures before. I think we 
will have it again in these new areas, and these new areas are the ones 
that need the most in terms of expenditure. Very frankly, we cannot 
afford to go it alone anymore. We want to see a requirement that 
Congress review the expenditures of funds in these areas.
  Mr. HELMS. I would like to send a modification to the desk so we can 
accept that.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the chairman will withhold for just a minute, I have no 
objection to agreeing to what you have stated. I would like to, and we 
have plenty of time to do this, and you have my commitment we will do 
it if our staffs can make sure that I am not misunderstanding what is 
being said.
  Mr. HELMS. That is fair.
  Mr. BIDEN. But I am 99 percent certain we agree fully, I say to the 
Senator from Alaska, in what he is attempting to do, and if he just 
changed

[[Page S3847]]

the language ``any NATO expenditure'' and we say ``any U.S. expenditure 
beyond a common budget affecting any of these three nations 
requires''--I am not a draftsman--``requires the authorization 
committee to do it,'' I will accept that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I state to my friend from Delaware that I am preparing 
to change the amendment so that it reads, ``requirement of payments of 
funds specifically authorized, no cost incurred by the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, NATO, other than the common funded budgets of NATO 
in connection with the admission of membership participation of any 
country not a member of NATO as of March 1, 1998, may be paid out of 
funds from any agency,'' et cetera.

  We do not seek to be redundant with the second amendment, but 2065 
addresses the voyeurism of our people in Europe to go and do it alone 
in interoperability, in communications, in the whole series of things 
that they wish to have these new members of NATO have, without regard 
to common funded budgets, and to go obligate the United States, and 
then we get the bills brought to us in Appropriations without any 
authorization, without any review of Foreign Relations Committee, of 
Armed Services Committee, and suddenly the Appropriations Committee is 
faced with making decisions which we shouldn't have to make.
  I am told all the time these areas should be authorized by law, and 
here is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee saying why don't 
we have a requirement they be authorized by law. It is sort of like a 
role reversal here of the husband saying, ``I've got a headache 
tonight, dear.'' It is not quite the normal thing to be hearing from an 
authorizer that this is wrong for us to say. Make them get the 
authorization by law before they present the Appropriations Committee a 
bill to be paid.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, we have a unanimous consent we 
would like to enter, and it would give the Senator a minute to see if 
they can get an agreement on this point.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield.