[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3130-H3137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hart). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I have taken this hour under the 
leadership's prerogatives this evening in order to address three 
related subjects. I will be joined, I am sure, by some of my colleagues 
who also have something to say about these subjects because of their 
recent involvement in a meeting.
  First of all, I would like to spend some time talking about the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly; second, relatedly, about the subject of NATO 
expansion, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion; and third, 
about two of nine applicant countries, Lithuania and Bulgaria.
  It has been my privilege to participate in the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, formerly known as the North Atlantic Assembly, since 1984 on 
a rather regular basis. Since 1995, I have had the opportunity to chair 
the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
  This organization, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, has now been in 
existence and operating efficiently and I think quite effectively for 
more than 40 years, first for the 12 countries of the NATO Alliance, 
later expanded to 16, and now 19 members.
  Congress participates as a result of a statutory decision which 
provides for participation for both the House and Senate and bipartisan 
delegations that meet with our European and Canadian allies in NATO, 
their parliamentarians semi-annually, and in fact a third meeting that 
involves part of the assembly which takes place in Brussels in 
February, where we meet not only with our colleagues from the NATO 
countries but also with officials of NATO, the North Atlantic Council, 
the Secretary General of NATO, and more recently, with the European 
Union and some of its components, like the European Commission and the 
European Parliament.
  Without a doubt, the NATO organization, NATO, has been the most 
effective collective defense alliance in the history of the world. It 
has provided the collective security to those nations of Western 
Europe, and it is no surprise that many countries of the former Warsaw 
Pact now aspire to membership not only to the European Union but to 
NATO itself.
  The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has provided a forum for discussion, 
for dialogue, for research by the parliamentarians of the 16, now 19, 
NATO countries. It is by, all accounts, the most substantive of all of 
the interparliamentary efforts in which the House and Senate are 
involved.
  The members of the delegation from the House and from the Senate are 
chosen by the leadership on both sides of the aisle to participate in 
this assembly, and we have always proceeded in a bipartisan fashion.
  Our comments tonight are prompted by the fact that we have recently 
returned from one of our semiannual meetings. This one was in Vilnius, 
Lithuania.

[[Page H3131]]

  Lithuania is not a member of NATO, but as the Soviet Union collapsed, 
as the Iron Curtain came down, as Yugoslavia began to disintegrate, we 
had a substantial concern and interest in assuring that these nations 
of the former Warsaw Pact and indeed parts of the Soviet Union were 
given an opportunity to benefit from participation in the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly as associate members, because it was our view 
that if we could help them, particularly in their parliamentary bodies, 
move towards democratic institutions and practices, this would be a 
major service to those countries.
  In fact, we had a very successful and very organized effort to reach 
out to these countries' parliamentarians and to the parliaments 
themselves. We called it the Rose-Ross Seminar. They were financed in 
significant part by the United States, through the U.S. Agency for 
International Development funds, but now they are supported by the 
assembly itself, with contributions from other countries.
  The U.S. no longer has a predominant role in financing these 
seminars, but they were meant to help these parliamentarians and the 
leaders of those governments, civilian, military, to understand what it 
was like to participate and work in a democracy; to build democratic 
institutions; and, in fact, to try to provide transparency in 
budgeting, civilian control of the military, and eventually, of course, 
interoperability with NATO forces, if that is the course they chose.
  Nine of those countries have chosen to aspire to and formally request 
membership in NATO. They range across the face of Central and Eastern 
Europe from the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania down 
to Bulgaria in southeastern Europe. They are known today as the Vilnius 
Nine, from a meeting of the nine that recently took place in Vilnius.
  I notice that we are joined by one of my colleagues, who is the vice-
chairman of the Political Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly 
here in the House. My colleagues know him as the chairman of the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).

  I think as my colleagues appear, since they have busy schedules, we 
will just let them speak to any of the three subjects that are related 
that we wish to discuss tonight. We will talk about the assembly itself 
and how it operates, about the fact that we visited two of the aspiring 
members, and about the subject of NATO expansion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. 
Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his consideration 
in yielding to me, Madam Speaker, and I congratulate him for his 
leadership of the NATO parliamentarian group.
  I am not sure that all Members understand, and certainly most people 
in America do not understand, the extraordinary efforts we go to to 
reach out to parliamentarians in other countries in order to ensure 
that our form of democracy is well understood, and to make sure that we 
understand, as perhaps the only world's leading superpower now, some of 
the problems other countries are facing and how their legislative 
branches are dealing with those.
  That is particularly true with our allies in NATO, the member 
nations, because we are dealing with a very critical subject here, and 
that is the national security, and in the case of NATO, the collective 
security of those who have signed on to NATO.
  It is no secret, of course, that now that we have a number of 
countries that aspire to membership in NATO because of concerns about 
their national security that we have decisions facing us which are 
somewhat timely, in fact, as soon as a year from now, and in a few 
months in Prague next November, where decisions are going to have to be 
made about the enlargement, and many nations are following specific 
plans to try and make sure that they are eligible and in fact will be 
included in NATO membership and the responsibilities that that implies; 
in fact, not only implies but demands, because there are considerable 
demands in order to meet the standards of NATO.
  For example, a percentage of the gross domestic product of each 
country has to be used for defense, collective defense. There has to be 
some type of interoperability. That means speaking a common language. 
Those types of things are very important.
  I believe that it is fair to say that we have a window of opportunity 
right now that is not going to stay there forever. The gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman, has just led a delegation to 
Vilnius, Lithuania, and to Bulgaria. These are two of the nine states 
that are aspirant applicants for the next round of enlargement.
  We saw there a tremendous commitment among the people, among the 
leadership, because of the desirability to look west and join the 
freedom-loving democracies in that form of government, and they are 
willing to make sacrifices in those countries to meet the standards of 
operability and the standards necessary for membership to accept all 
responsibilities.
  Some have said that the enlargement issue is a bad issue because, oh, 
there are cost problems, or it will upset the Russians, or a whole 
bunch of other arguments that we heard when the previous three 
countries were brought into NATO, Hungary and the Czech Republic and 
Poland, all of whom have been very supportive, valued additions to the 
NATO arrangement since their membership and coming in.
  I believe that we are going to see the same thing with the other 
countries that are ready for enlargement. If we miss the opportunity to 
capture the enthusiasm that they have for the sacrifices they are 
willing to make to join NATO now, I am not sure where they go or how it 
will come out.
  So I think the enlargement question is a critical question that needs 
to be boosted forth, brought to the attention of our colleagues, and 
made clear that it should be a critical point of the foreign policy 
matters of the Bush administration. I hope that is going to happen.
  It is, I suppose, not coincidental that President Bush is at this 
very time in Europe discussing some of the other issues that are 
involved. Obviously, we have the missile defense questions that are of 
interest to our allies, and the whole question of the European security 
defense, what that is going to look like, because that could color our 
presence in the Balkans, and many other issues that are of great 
interest to us.
  But when it comes down to the fabric, the atmosphere, the 
willingness, the commitment, the spirit of NATO, I think the 
enlargement question is the most important.
  I must congratulate the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) 
for constantly through the years being a champion of this, leading the 
way, taking delegation after delegation over to meet with our 
colleagues in various places, and receiving those colleagues, those 
parliamentarians who have come back from those places to get more 
information from Washington.

  It has been a real labor of love. It has shown great results. I think 
the gentleman's wisdom and vision has preceded him with the three who 
have already been enrolled as the enlarged members, and with the other 
nine aspirants out there. I believe we have now visited virtually all 
of them. It seems to me we are at the threshold of opportunity, and if 
we fail to take it, I think it is a ``shame on us'' situation. I thank 
the gentleman for the time to say that.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind 
remarks.
  At the Lithuania meeting, I think the controversial elements on our 
agenda included the Albanian ethnic conflict in Macedonia or the former 
Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonia.
  We always talk about burden-sharing. We are concerned and interested 
as constructive critics over what the European Union will be doing on 
creating a European security and defense policy, or ESDI, some would 
say.
  They wanted to know our views on missile defense, a limited missile 
defense that the President is addressing now at various points in 
Europe.
  But I think ultimately it always comes back to, as one element in our 
discussion, the subject of NATO enlargement. I think it is appropriate 
for the gentleman and for this delegation to talk to our colleagues in 
the House and to the Congress in front of the American people about the 
U.S. role in enlargement and the advantages that brings to the 
Alliance, and the responsibilities we have to assure that worthy 
applicants, countries that have

[[Page H3132]]

met some of the criteria that the gentleman mentioned, have an 
opportunity to bring the NATO umbrella over them and to make a 
contribution to the collective security.
  The first enlargement of NATO was an easy one when the Federal 
Republic of Germany took into its arms the German Democratic Republic, 
East Germany. As a result of the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and 
the collapse of the Iron Curtain, that was an easy addition.
  But then we may remember, and I am sure the gentleman does because he 
was involved in it, along with this Member, that it was the House of 
Representatives that really took the lead in pushing for the 
enlargement of NATO. The Senate followed us, and then the Clinton 
administration, in recognizing and supporting the Congress of the 
United States, took the leadership role within the North Atlantic 
Council in the meeting of our Secretary of State with their foreign 
ministers and our Ministers of Defense, and pushed for NATO 
enlargement.

                              {time}  1745

  For us, we have always said the doors are open, as long as these 
countries are willing to move towards democratic institutions and to 
assure civilian control of their military and to have no aspirations 
for the territory of their neighbors, to make the kind of commitments 
necessary for providing an adequate defense, to contribute to the NATO 
alliance, they ought to be eligible for membership.
  So we have as a result of that, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and 
Poland as the first round of members by a decision in 1999. I think the 
only disappointment in the Congress is that one other country, 
Slovenia, which most of us had considered to be quite worthy of 
membership at that time and, indeed, that was the expression of the 
Congress, was not taken in. But they are certainly a leading candidate 
for the next round.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) mentioned that this decision 
will come before us again as a group of 19 NATO countries in Prague in 
2002. My estimate is that unless the United States takes the 
leadership, expansion will not proceed at that time. And I think we 
have that responsibility. We have, within the U.S. government, I think, 
a leading role.
  I only regret that votes on the tax cut bill kept us from visiting 
one other country, because Slovakia, among the first four considered 
for membership that took a different turn in its politics, now has made 
dramatic advances; and we were planning to visit Slovakia, as well as 
Lithuania and Bulgaria.
  I might explain to my colleagues that we solicit advice from a number 
of sources, our State Department, people outside government, the 
supreme commander of Europe, General Joseph Ralston, as to the 
countries we might visit now as being among the front runners for NATO 
membership and countries that needed to have recognition for the 
advances that they have taken. That is how we selected our visitation 
as a result of the trip to Vilnius.
  I wonder if the gentleman has any reaction to the demonstrations that 
we saw in Vilnius, Lithuania.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I think it was extremely heartening. I cannot 
speak with enough admiration for the respect I have for the Baltic 
nations and what they endured under the past years of tyranny before 
they were freed, and that has been freedom that has been very precious 
only for a decade.
  Their enthusiasm is somewhat, therefore, more understandable when you 
are there; but the very strong ardent feeling, passion about being free 
and democratic and leaning West and wanting to be associated with the 
things we stand for and willing to shoulder the responsibility and, as 
I say, make the sacrifice, because there is some sacrifice, that is not 
one of the wealthiest Nations in the world by any means. And there is 
some sacrifice involved.
  There was very strong support for NATO, very clear friendship, very 
clear understanding of what they were getting into, how much they 
wanted to be involved in this, and how far they were willing to go.
  I have spent some time, and I congratulate our speaker for his 
outreach to parliamentarians in other countries as well, including the 
former Soviet Union, Russia.
  The Speaker has reached out to the Duma and to the leadership of the 
Duma and has made a recent trip there. And one of the conversations 
that we, of course, had with our fellow colleagues in the Duma as 
legislators is the concern that they have that NATO is getting too 
close somehow to Russia.
  We point out always to the parliamentarians, to the Duma, that NATO 
is a defense organization. It is not a defensive organization, and one 
of the cases we use is how well in Vilnius they have dealt with 
problems that were serious problems previously in the relationships 
with Russia.
  In fact, Vilnius, has, I think, responded very, very favorably in the 
dealings with Belarus. I do not think anybody can say they have been 
anything except good neighbors and gone the extra mile to work out 
appropriate sovereign questions with the Belarus. In terms of the 
Russian interest in Lithuania itself, the concern has always been the 
Kaliningrad Corridor, how do you get to Kaliningrad Corridor, another 
part of Russia, which is on the other side, as it turns out, of 
Lithuania on the Baltic.
  The problem of the responsibility of that has been worked out 
extremely proficiently, very well, and to the Russian satisfaction and 
to the Lithuanian satisfaction under Lithuanian leadership.
  So if there is some danger to the Russians by Lithuania somehow 
acting responsibly and democratically and freely and joining with 
counterpart organizations and NATO, I fail to see what it is.
  If anything, the Russians should argue that the Lithuanian 
neighborhood has become much more friendly to Russia since they have 
been aspirant to NATO because they understand the responsibilities of 
that.

  I am not sure that the Russians are ready to accept that argument 
yet, but I certainly congratulate the Lithuanians.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. 
They are exactly right. It should bring some additional stability to 
the region, and the Russians really should have nothing really to fear. 
Let me go back briefly to give a history of what has happened to the 
Baltic Nations.
  Back in the late 1930s, we had the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop which 
ceded those three Baltic nations to the Soviet Union, and then they 
were forcibly annexed, and thousands of people were killed or sent to 
Siberia and then we had the Nazi invasion of the region, and they come 
under Nazi control before they fell back under the control of the 
Soviet Union.
  Now, to the resounding credit and resounding yet today, the United 
States never recognized the annexation of these three nations into the 
Soviet Union. In fact, you could go up 16th Street and see some of the 
embassies, free Lithuania and free Estonia and free Latvia operating, 
and the diplomats actually got to be old men and women here waiting for 
freedom which finally came with their way with great difficulty.
  One of our colleagues who has taken a very special interest in the 
NATO parliamentary assembly, participating only since the February 
meeting, but an even greater and longer-term interest in the Baltic 
Nations is our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for any comments 
he would like to make about NATO enlargement or Lithuania or whatever 
subject he would like to discuss.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and I really am 
honored to have been able to travel with you and deal with issues 
regarding with NATO.
  I have learned a lot and grown a lot, and I appreciate the wise 
council and expertise.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following op-ed for the 
Record:

         Should the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Expand?

                     (By Congressman John Shimkus)

       As I fly 31,000 feet above Bosnia and Herzogovina, I think 
     of its present strife. I see the steep slopes and terraced 
     farmland. It is quiet and serene at this height, hiding 
     national tensions that have made the Balkans the powder keg 
     of Europe.

[[Page H3133]]

       My return flight originated from Sofia, Bulgaria, as an 
     official member of the U.S. delegation to the NATO 
     Parliamentary Assembly. Our short trip was designed to 
     compliment the Bulgarian people on their movement to a 
     constitutional democracy, with rule of law and respect for 
     human rights. We also assessed their potential as a friend 
     and possible future ally.
       Bulgaria is not only an example to the Balkans but a very 
     stabilizing force. And in addition to being a stabilizing 
     force for the Balkans, Bulgaria is a constructive link 
     between occasionally feuding current NATO allies Greece and 
     Turkey.
       From the Bulgarian President to the Prime Minister, the 
     Chairman of the Parliament to the Defense Minister, all were 
     on message as to the importance of NATO and their hope to be 
     included in the next round of enlargement. Our meeting 
     occurred weeks before a competitive upcoming national 
     election. As a politician myself, I understand the value of 
     time. Their availability reinforced the importance they place 
     on their Western contacts, the continuing importance of the 
     United States in European affairs, and their appreciation of 
     NATO membership.
       Prior to Sofia, I attended the NATO Parliamentary Assembly 
     spring session in Vilnius, Lithuania. Another strong 
     applicant for enlargement, Lithuania is an associate member 
     of NATO and a member of several demanding programs for NATO 
     aspirants. They did not miss their opportunity to impress the 
     NATO Parliamentary Assembly. (Which made this fourth 
     generation Lithuanian very proud.)
       Lithuania has also developed a constitutional democracy, 
     the rule of law, and a respect for human rights. Lithuania 
     has attempted to be an additive element to NATO. Immediately 
     upon the breakout of hostilities in Bosnia and Herzogovina 
     and Kosovo, Lithuania deployed troops in support of both NATO 
     missions. Not constrained by the old Soviet force structure, 
     Lithuania is moving to light infantry for deployability and 
     forest defense. Lithuania's rapid ascent to a functioning 
     democracy, tolerance for its Russian minority, and a 
     willingness to put a painful 20th Century history behind it 
     make the country a serious candidate for alliance membership.
       The Lithuanian president fought against the Soviet army as 
     a member of Lithuania's Homeland Defense. He eventually fled 
     for freedom and gained success in the United States. His 
     election marked a westward look by Lithuania. Lithuania's 
     leadership is young and motivated. At the Ministerial level, 
     the Chairman of Parliament, and the Prime Minister . . . the 
     ages run from 38 to 53 years old.
       But one of my poignant memories of the trip was the jeweler 
     from the open air historical museum of Rumsiskes. Above the 
     door of his shop were these words in English, ``I want to be 
     in NATO, because my family died in Siberia.'' Lithuania has 
     been run over numerous times and has suffered great 
     destruction. Most recently, Germany and the Soviet Union in 
     World War II. No Lithuanian was untouched by those events. 
     Yet the current government has energetically sought good 
     relations with all of its neighbors, including Russia.
       Why would Bulgaria, Lithuania, or any other country want to 
     join NATO? Why is this important to the United States and the 
     20th District of Illinois?
       For many years the Statue of Liberty has been a symbol of 
     freedom, security, and economic opportunity for many 
     immigrant families. The Statue faces east, welcoming 
     immigrants to our shores. Now I think as she faces east, she 
     also looks east toward Europe at these former captive nations 
     who struggle as newly emerged democracies.
       Many of us multi-generational immigrants, after years of 
     security and freedom, take our liberties for granted. Many of 
     us are too young to have experienced the fresh air of newly 
     found freedom. This trip revived my senses. Not only could I 
     smell the sweet air of freedom; I could see it, touch it, and 
     taste it. I am a better father, citizen, and representative 
     for it.
       This will be true for NATO. For NATO to be relevant, it 
     must expand its current protective umbrella over these new 
     emerging democracies. By expanding, NATO will experience 
     heightened senses--seeing, feeling, touching, and tasting 
     freedom. We will also have a better chance that our young men 
     and women will be spared the horrors of war. The taxpayers 
     also may be spared the great expense of war with a little 
     preparation and prevention.
       As President Clinton said, the goal of NATO is to ``expand 
     the frontier of freedom.'' Hopefully President Bush will say 
     the same with this addition: ``from the Baltic Sea to the 
     Black Sea, a Europe whole, free, and secure.''

  Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph says as President Clinton said, the 
goal of NATO is to expand the frontier of freedom. Hopefully President 
Bush will say the same, with this addition, from the Baltic Sea to the 
Black Sea a Europe whole, free, and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this special order tonight because this is 
occurring at the time when the President is overseas, and there are a 
lot of anxious people going to be hanging on every word that he says, 
like the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. They are going to be 
dissecting it, because it means so much.
  I have done a couple of things in preparation for tonight, and the 
gentleman mentioned the rallies, and I brought some small photos from 
the rallies.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Those rallies in support of NATO membership?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Rallies in support of NATO membership. First, I want to 
show some photos of times that I remember. My involvement with NATO 
goes back as a young second lieutenant on the German border with 
Czechoslovakia serving in defense of freedom under NATO auspices which 
I did for 3 years.
  These are the photos I remember. Here is an East German border guard 
looking across at the people who would recognize this who remember the 
old pillars. And on the other side, here is the actual fence with an 
East German guard and the dog trailing behind as there is a patrol, as 
we did so often, is keep checking on each other.
  These stand in stark contrast to our most recent trip, where we have 
photos from the rally that happened right outside the meeting arena. I 
wanted to make sure I had that.
  There were some signs up of the people who were present. One says 
here, it says NATO Lithuania, good, okay. This other one, the small one 
says, the victims of Gulag are calling for justice.
  In our trips and in my op-ed, I am not sure if there was a single 
family that was not touched by the occupation of all of these forces.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to relate the experience I 
saw, at a little booth there with the jeweler working and displaying 
his ware, and he had NATO, yes. My family was sent to Siberia.
  His entire family never came back from Siberia, so he wanted to make 
sure that does not reoccur in some fashion in the future.
  There was this artisan who has a very strong commitment to NATO 
membership for Lithuania.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. 
Speaker, another photo is what we touched on earlier, and it actually 
represents the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And it says, the Pact of 
Molotov-Ribbentrop is our past; NATO is our future.
  I think what I have enjoyed about this brief experience into the NATO 
parliamentary assembly is, as I say in my op-ed piece, is really 
breathing the fresh air of freedom. I tried to make this point to a lot 
of my parliamentary colleagues from some of the other countries in that 
for NATO to be the NATO that I know, it has to expand. It has to have a 
protective umbrella over these emerging democracies.
  In one of my closing statements in Vilnius, I said if not here, 
meaning in Vilnius, my question was where? If not now, my question is 
when? There is a lot of debate about the where and the when.
  I will just say that we, as a Nation, have had a lot of people 
sacrifice for freedom. Some have actually had to fight and die, and we 
just celebrated Memorial Day. They understand the value of a free 
society and the sacrifices.
  The folks who are considered the old captive nations, they have this 
exuberance of freedom that helps create optimism and faith in 
democratic ways of life, the rule of law, equal treatment, human 
rights. They are struggling to form a more perfect union. They are not 
all perfect, but one way we can definitely help is to provide that 
protective umbrella through a defense alliance, such as NATO, to give 
them some foundational support as they pursue becoming a more perfect 
union themselves.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and I hope he will make contributions any time he feels the urge to do 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding further, 
because our colleague who was a wonderful addition to the group of 
parliamentarians in Vilnius because he is so familiar with the 
territory and the experience there made it more value-added than it 
normally is for a visit for those countries.
  I congratulate him for his expertise and his patience in educating 
the rest of us on some of the issues, and food not the least of which, 
the gentleman is an expert on many things.

[[Page H3134]]

  I was struck by something the gentleman said. It so happens that in 
Vilnius, Lithuania as in somewhat similar situations elsewhere in the 
Baltic nations, Latvia and Estonia, there is a KGB museum. And it was, 
in fact, a show place of terror and torture and inhumanity and all of 
the history, that painfully recent history that the gentleman has 
referred to and it is shown off as an example of what should not happen 
in a free and humanitarian civilized society.
  Clearly, there were barbaric acts of torture, treachery, horrible 
suffering, heartbreak, all of these pieces brought to the surface and 
even the photographs that were lining the meeting halls, which were 
reminders to us of the atrocities that took place in such recent 
history during the Cold War under the whole very cold harsh hands, 
unsympathetic leadership from a foreign country.

                              {time}  1800

  The curious part of that is that, in my view, the Baltic nations have 
gotten over it and on their way so well and are willing to go forward 
and positively in the future. I think that is terrific. But I think the 
fact that they have that KGB museum is a reminder of why they are so 
anxious to be in NATO, so this can never happen again, is a perfectly 
rational straightforward approach.
  It so happens the juxtaposition of two other countries that happened 
to be in on this recent trip, with the chairman's leadership, and also 
splitting my time partly with the Speaker in Russia, is in Russia the 
KGB is looked on very differently.
  The KGB has undergone a name change and some cosmetic surgery and is 
now called the SVR and is becoming more fashionable. It is true that 
the present leader of Russia is a former KGBer. Mr. Putin is, in fact, 
a KGBer, and he has many of the KGB folks around him. There is sort of 
a rehabilitation of being a KGBer involved.
  So if one goes from the Baltic nations in one day and goes to Russia, 
one gets a very different approach if one goes to the KGB museum in 
Moscow. It is great that the Baltic nations have gotten over it. They 
remember it. They are not happy about it, but they are willing to go 
forward in a constructive way.
  It appeared to me that the juxtaposition with the Russians are, no, 
they are still trying to justify it, they are resurrecting it, and they 
are not being realistic at all about their future. To me, it is a 
striking problem, and it is a problem that we have to deal with with 
Russia. I think that we are committed to do that.
  But I think it is a question of understanding rather than threat. I 
do not believe the Baltic nations propose in any way a threat to 
Russia, nor I think does the United States of America seek to propose a 
threat to Russia.
  That is not what the enlargement of NATO is about. It is a defense 
organization. I say that because, also, we were under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) in Bulgaria. Bulgaria has a 
very different arrangement with Russia, a very different type of 
situation as a former part of the Soviet bloc and has kept a different 
approach to dealing with Russia today, which is not as decisive a 
feeling as has existed in the past in the Baltic nations for all the 
understandable reasons.
  So we have many different views and many different points of view. 
But the people who are looking positively into the future for their own 
security, whether they be the Baltic nations or the Bulgarians or the 
Romanians or the Slovenians or Slovakians, are looking for the 
guarantee of security, the stability, the idea to participate in 
civilized Western society and go forward with all that opportunity and 
pay the price of doing that in terms of the sacrifice they have to 
make.
  That is the difference. That is our job, not only to honor the fact 
that we have opportunity in the open window for the aspirant nations 
who wish to come into NATO, but also to assure the Russians that that 
is not a threat to Russia.
  I honestly believe our friend Jerry Solomon, who used to be our 
leader in these endeavors, used to joke and say the day is going to 
come, and we are going to be able to invite Russia into NATO. I hope 
that day comes to pass. If we do our job right, it may very well come 
to pass.
  The only other point I would want to make, if the gentleman from 
Nebraska would indulge me for a minute more, is that I sometimes hear 
from others who do not entirely understand NATO today and the NATO 
concept, that NATO is engaged in other adventures like the Balkans, 
where we have basically a peacekeeping operation going on that is very 
delicate and somewhat dangerous and actually doing quite a good job 
under extraordinary difficult circumstances by NATO member countries, 
in fact other countries as well, Partnership for Peace countries and 
others.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Including the Baltic Brigade, and elements of Lithuania 
and Poland are there, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GOSS. Indeed. Mr. Speaker, in fact, one can say that the Baltic, 
think of that, the Lithuanian-Polish Brigade helping out, two folks 
that were having troubles before now working together, this shows that 
things are possible. But when you get through, the argument always in 
Russia is, but you see, you go off and do different things.
  I think it is interesting that the Petersburg tasks are now being 
more and more assigned to the U.S., the new ESDI, the European pillar, 
whatever that is going to emerge as, and that that would be the place 
that those get parked, and that there will be a reaffirmation that the 
NATO is, in fact, a defense treaty organization. I think that we have 
work to do to stress that point.
  The point to the Russians is that, if they are concerned about the 
European security defense initiative, they need to talk to the European 
Union about that because those are the folks that are about that. That 
is not our main issue.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to Bulgaria in a 
minute. But I want to comment briefly again on the Baltics because 
those three countries have not had it easy. There has been a 
significant Russian population from some of them, particularly Latvia, 
not so much in Lithuania. So the tensions have been there as they have 
moved to an independent status. The language issues. But I think they 
have done an admirable job of addressing those and trying to permit 
full participation of Russian and other non-Baltic nation ethnics into 
their society.
  I also think it is interesting how much they look to the United 
States as a role model and how much we have to live up to to meet their 
expectations. Well, for example, there is a big American connection in 
so many ways and in the government of those three Baltic states. One 
finds U.S. citizens who have dual citizenships in the parliaments of 
all three countries. The President of Lithuania is a former resident of 
Chicago, I believe was the EPA Regional Administrator.
  The very impressive President of Latvia, indeed, spent much of her 
career as a scientist and as a teacher in Canada and had many 
connections with the United States.
  I know as I have gone in the past to the Baltic States, first in 
1996, I think, as a part of our outreach to their parliaments with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and our former colleague Congressman 
Solomon, the Omaha Lithuanian community was very interested in 
discussing my upcoming trip and then having to report back because they 
have a sister city relationship with one of the communities in 
Lithuania. Indeed, I have a large Latvian active community in my own 
major city of Lincoln.
  So we have had this American association. The Scandinavian countries 
have provided some assistance, particularly Denmark. It has been an 
effort to bring them along through the Partnership for Peace Program 
and to participate, as the gentleman says, in peacekeeping activities 
in the Balkan region.
  I visited Bulgaria for the first time, I think, in about 1983, and 
what a different place that was compared to today. They had a very 
different and more positive relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union, 
than with any other of the so-called satellite countries in the Warsaw 
Pact, probably because they shared more closely a religion, language, 
and they had no common border with the Soviet Union, perhaps the 
important distinction. In fact, the czar had been in there twice to in 
their view rescue them from the Ottoman Empire.

[[Page H3135]]

  But in any case, I think what has happened in Bulgaria has also been 
equally impressive because they have embraced democracy. They have 
taken an interesting turn or two in the process. But their elections 
have been free and fair by international observers' unanimous view. 
They are facing another one on June 17.
  So the American delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly will 
perhaps pay more attention to that than most Americans. But it is every 
expectation it is going to be a free and fair election. Perhaps the 
government party will have to share power.
  But when they went through that election in 1997, they took a 
different course even more emphatically, and they became very concerned 
about embracing ethnic differences in their own country, about being a 
good neighbor to Macedonia. They have a positive relationship with two 
of our NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, that sometimes have their 
differences.
  Bulgaria, in fact, has become an element of peace and stability in 
that region. We watched their changes there, their suffering 
difficulties. Their people are impatient for more economic progress. 
They have the problems of the mafia from other countries that plague 
them. But I think they are striving in a very direct fashion, and it is 
going to give them the kind of results that those citizens of Bulgaria 
want, if they have enough patience, if we help them and give them every 
opportunity to justify their applicant status in NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, was impressed by our subsequent 
visit to Bulgaria for the reasons that the gentleman from Nebraska 
mentioned. Their ability to help unite our allies and work with both 
Greece and Turkey and the stabilizing force that they do establish in 
the Balkans and the ethnic diversity was very striking. Just walking 
down the main streets, to see the different places of worship really 
standing right next to each other in that part of the world, that is 
not happening as much as it should.
  I was struck with one of our luncheons when it was asked, well, how 
come, Congressman Shimkus, House Concurrent Resolution 116 specifically 
talks to the Baltic nations and not all the rest of the applicants? It 
was a fair question. My response was there is a different attitude of 
Russia to the other applicants for admission than to the Baltic area. 
This is not to exclude the other applicants or to place them in 
competition with each other, but this is to say to our friends in 
Russia that they are treating them differently. We do not want them to 
be treated differently. They have no veto authority.
  Our appeal is that the President, in the next day or so, continues to 
make the case of the open door policy, which the whole parliamentary 
association reconfirmed that no one has a veto, and that geography is 
not going to be a determining factor.
  I was also struck with the gentleman mentioning a lot of the new 
elected officials, especially, well, Lithuania and Latvia. He was 
talking about all the U.S. citizens that have gone back to be involved 
in the private and the public sector.
  The people who have endured years under domination actually made a 
conscious decision in their elections to look west. In their electing 
of these expatriates or dual citizenship individuals, they made a 
conscious decision to look west. That is the critical aspect of this 
whole debate.
  When they are looking west, we should not take the time to close the 
door on them. We should welcome them as they look west to democratic 
institutions, ethnic pluralism, human rights, and all the benefits of 
that.
  They are making a tremendous sacrifice to meet the requirements for 
NATO admission by trying to get the 2 percent of their GDP. For new 
emerging democracies that are coming out of a centralized economic 
command and control economy, for them to put so many resources into 
getting up to NATO standards should be applauded, should be welcomed, 
and should be rewarded.
  The last thing that I want to mention in this little section is that 
some of these same debates about the Baltics occurred with Poland, that 
it would be destabilizing, that our friends in Russia would not like 
it. But I think history proves that the relationship between Poland and 
Russia is even better today than it was before their entrance into 
NATO. I will stake my name on it right now that the relationship with 
the Baltic nations will be better with Russia after their admittances 
to NATO than if we prolong this over a period of years.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Russians have benefited 
economically from Poland's emergence as a market-oriented economy and 
as a part of the West. I have every expectation that this would happen 
with the Baltic nations as well. Russia uses those ports. The Baltic 
people are very entrepreneurial in their outlook. There is no doubt 
that there would be benefits to their next-door neighbor Russia as well 
in my judgment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, if I may just add, the relationship has 
only been strengthened in Lithuania, especially with the Kaliningrad 
area in that there is normal everyday discussions of transportation of 
goods and material to the enclave there in Kaliningrad, and there has 
been zero incidences.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, one of the surprises to me has been the 
reluctance in the past, and I think today, of some of our European NATO 
allies to embrace expansion. They have been very slow to expand the 
European Union east when that is an important element of bringing 
economic prosperity and stability to Europe, to make Europe, as we say, 
one, whole in one, and safe for democracy and for people to pursue 
their dreams and their aspirations.
  We have, I suppose, some reluctance on the part of some of the 
European countries because they see their economic relationship, 
perhaps the debt that they have with Russia as a point of concern. I 
should say their creditors have debt, that the Russian government owes 
those banks.

                              {time}  1815

  I think it will take American leadership once more. Perhaps that 
leadership will come from this House when we insist that the door 
remains open. It is not a matter of whether or not NATO is going to 
expand, it is when, and when the countries make the necessary steps.
  The GNP contributions of Bulgaria, for example, are 3 percent. We are 
pushing hard for some of our existing NATO membership to reach 2 
percent because the quality of the forces has deteriorated in some of 
our NATO member countries. And we look at this in sort of amazement and 
concern when they are actually creating an ESDP, another entity, a 
rapid reaction force within the European Union.
  I know the President is going to be pushed hard to be explicit about 
what direction, which countries should be brought in, and in my 
judgment at least that is not appropriate for him to make that kind of 
explicit statement at this point. But we want to encourage all of those 
members to meet the requirements, the criteria listed or otherwise, 
that will qualify them for membership. So I hope that, in fact, the 
President gets an opportunity in Warsaw, where he is expected to make 
comments about this, to give every encouragement to the nine aspirant 
countries.
  Mr. GOSS. May I ask the gentleman to yield for just one moment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. I notice that there happen to be four of us here because of 
the chairman's leadership I think on this side, but this is strictly a 
bipartisan effort. We have colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
too, and they are equal players and very valuable to putting this whole 
message out. So I do not want anybody to think that this is a one-party 
initiative. This is an effort of the House, and the gentleman leads it 
very well.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his bringing that 
up. It has always been bipartisan. In fact, we have had presidents of 
the assembly itself that are Democratic colleagues on the House side; 
and more recently, our former senior Senator from Delaware, Senator 
Roth, was the president.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds), who made his first visit to a

[[Page H3136]]

NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Vilnius, and we welcome him to 
the delegation. I am interested in what a newcomer's attitudes and 
outlook would be about what he saw in Vilnius.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, I thank the gentleman, and he made the trip a 
highly successful one for this newest member of this bipartisan 
delegation that was in Lithuania and then in Bulgaria.
  I somewhat shared with my staff that I felt it was like taking a 
three-credit hour, 1-week class to learn a little on NATO, a little on 
Europe and its politics, the European Union interaction and European 
history to understand all that.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Surprisingly, I have been accused of working the 
delegation too hard. I cannot understand that, but I yield back.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. From that new knowledge, and as I understand the 
presentation now, I have gained an appreciation of some of the general 
direction of NATO and our role in that important body, as well as the 
subject of NATO expansion and Lithuania, which was our host. I might 
add that our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), of 
Lithuanian descent, was immediately a recognized hero not only for his 
basketball skills but by his presence and his caring for his homeland. 
He also had the unique opportunity of sharing some of that with his 
family, which I know was very, very important to him.
  When we look at the picture of not only that meeting in Lithuania but 
the opportunity to go to Bulgaria, it was a new enlightening experience 
for me to see a country that many had considered the 16th part of the 
Soviet Union but who have now shown not only stability for themselves 
but been a tremendous partner in the region of stabilization. 
Particularly as we arrived there, we saw the meeting with the 
President, the Prime Minister, the chairman of the parliament, as well 
as a number of ministers, and recognized the relationships they had 
built with their neighbors, both Greece and Turkey, and the interaction 
and confidence both those countries had with Bulgaria.
  It was interesting looking at the democracy underway; that they have 
chosen to look at the Western Hemisphere as a model of where they want 
to pursue trade and opportunities of partnering, and also with Europe 
and the opportunity of trying to be successful in the admission to the 
European Union and to NATO. This showed me a country that is very 
important to the United States and, more importantly, to the world's 
interest with regard to the stability of the region.
  I think as a candidate for both NATO and the European Union 
membership we have an important role in Congress in the debate over 
that NATO enlargement. The first measures urging enlargement during the 
last round came from the House in 1994, and it is time again for the 
Chamber to enter the debate. Certainly Bulgaria, in the visit and the 
extensive conversations and meetings we had with its government, shows 
that they are doing everything in their power to prepare themselves to 
be ready to be a candidate for both the European Union but, more 
importantly for our mission, to NATO. And I look forward to their 
progress in the coming year as that is measured.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank my colleague from New York for his outstanding 
statement. It is obvious he has gained a lot and made a major 
contribution by his comments here tonight. But I am also impressed by 
the fact that both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) made major contributions to the 
defense committee in one case and the political committee in the other 
case during our meetings in Vilnius.
  I think maybe as we look ahead as to what our role is as a Congress, 
as the United States, we ought to recognize and I think emphasize to 
our colleagues that leadership from the United States is going to be 
required to expand NATO, appropriately expand it, to countries that 
meet the criteria.
  President Bush is in Europe at this moment. He is about to make an 
address in Warsaw. It will be, as I understand it, a major address on 
NATO. It is my strong desire and hope that the President will clearly 
indicate that there are no new barriers or any old barriers to NATO 
membership and that no part of Europe would be excluded because of 
history or geography. In short, there is no veto. We are going to look 
appropriately at the northern part of eastern and central Europe, the 
Baltic region, and countries like Slovenia and Slovakia in the center. 
And I would hope there will be one or more countries in southeastern 
Europe, in the Balkan region, that will qualify in our judgment and the 
judgment of the other 18 members of NATO for membership.
  It seems to me if one or more of those countries in the Balkans meets 
the criteria and can be brought in, it is an outstanding example to the 
other countries and ethnic groups in that troubled part of Europe that 
there is an opportunity for them to have a higher degree of security 
through NATO membership and perhaps to successfully aspire to 
membership in the European Union as well.
  I do want to say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that I 
recognize the contribution he has made by resolution that he has 
introduced before the Congress. It calls for the admission of new 
members to NATO, including the Baltic states, when the criteria for 
membership is fulfilled. And that is what it should come down to. So I 
heartily endorse and am pleased to be a cosponsor of the gentleman's 
legislation. It is the kind of initiative we had some time ago when we 
moved the country, moved the NATO alliance, towards expansion to the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
  I look to my colleagues for any concluding comments they might make 
in the last 5 minutes or so. I will yield to the gentleman from 
Florida, and then I will go to the gentleman from Illinois and the 
gentleman from New York. The gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for leading 
this and for all he does on this subject. I honestly believe that the 
world has changed in a great many ways. It is not just the technology, 
it is not just the evolution, it is not just the alignment of countries 
and the sovereignty questions and borders. It is all those things and 
more we are confronted with. And we are confronted with them in an 
extraordinary way of great privilege and honor but great responsibility 
and duty as members of the United States Congress when we talk to 
parliamentarians elsewhere, because people do look to the United States 
of America for help and guidance in so many ways.
  The point I would make is that I honestly believe that this window is 
open on enlargement. We have enthusiastic, spirit-filled activity going 
on in these countries. This is real commitment that we are seeing. And 
the good-news part of it, beyond all the good news that is inherent in 
that message, is that if these countries are able to qualify and come 
in in a steady way under the NATO defense umbrella, it seems to me that 
that removes uncertainty; and removing uncertainty removes playing 
fields for mischief makers. I think that is the nature of the security 
threat we have today, is too many mischief makers taking advantage of 
areas of uncertainty.
  So I think that stability factor we talk about is very important, and 
I think this is a critical time for leadership. I congratulate the 
gentleman for his leadership, and I hope we can get other leadership to 
list as well. I know the Speaker of the House is very interested in 
this and has been a great ally, and I am sure he will continue to be.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. And on a 
practical side, of course foreign investors, which are so important in 
that region, look to NATO membership as something that will bring 
security to their investments. We heard that in Bulgaria.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I just want to highlight the bipartisan aspect of the 
resolution: 25 Republicans, 15 Democrats. I want to also mention the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is the co-chair of the House 
Baltic Caucus highlighting that point.
  And just a statement to our European allies. We have been there for 
them year after year after year. They need to be there for these 
emerging democracies.
  Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman from New York has any concluding 
remarks, I yield to him.

[[Page H3137]]

  Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the chairman, and I just want to say that I 
support the Shimkus resolution as a cosponsor. As he advances that 
debate in the House, I look forward to participating with him and 
assisting him in the endeavor of that resolution.
  I also want to say this is an important time, while our President is 
overseas in that part of the world that NATO's whole universe is about, 
the aspect of defense of our allies. So this is a tremendous time to 
launch the further debate on NATO enlargement and reminding not only 
ourselves but the world of the criteria that NATO has established and 
that these countries are working diligently to meet that strong 
criteria so that they can be partnering in a NATO alliance in the 
future.
  I believe enlargement is a subject that, while we only discussed it 
today, should hopefully bring a result in Prague in 2002.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much for his remarks. I 
thank all my colleagues. And I want to say that I appreciate the 
written remarks submitted by our colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), our Democratic senior member of the Committee 
on International Relations, who is very supportive for NATO expansion. 
His views are very consistent with those I think we expressed here 
tonight.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for calling this special order 
on the recent meeting in Vilnius of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We 
in the House are indeed well served to by Doug Bereuter's outstanding 
leadership of the House delegation to the NATO parliamentarian 
exchanges. He is serious and thoughtful in his leadership, and he has 
served our nation well through his commitment to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly.
  Madam Speaker, in NATO and in the growing European Union we have a 
powerful group of friends and allies who basically share our values and 
objectives. We have said during the Cold War--and I personally 
passionately believe it--that NATO was a defensive military alliance. I 
believe that today NATO is a defensive alliance.
  I am completely supportive of NATO enlargement, once the countries 
which are candidates for membership meet the economic and political 
criteria that qualify them for membership. The three Baltic countries--
Lithuania, Lativa, and Estonia--are moving rapidly in this direction, 
and I strongly favor their admission into NATO. Whether it takes place 
in 2002, 2004, 2005 or 2006 is very secondary.
  Madam Speaker, I want to make clear my strong belief that Baltic 
membership in NATO--or the membership of any other country in NATO--is 
not contrary to Russian interests. In fact, it is in Russia's interest 
to have the arena of stability and prosperity in Europe expanded to 
Russia's borders. It is clear that as democratic forces gain strength 
within Russia, these democratic forces will welcome the enlargement of 
NATO and the growth of stable democracies in adjacent countries. It is 
not in Russia's interest to have countries such as Belorus run by a 
dictator on their border. It is in Russia's interest to have a country 
such as democratic Estonia--prosperous, free, and a member of NATO--to 
be near Russia.
  I never accepted during the Cold War--and I do not accept now--the 
notion that NATO threatens Russia. There is no NATO leader that has the 
slightest ambition to invade or act in a way that is contrary to 
Russia's long-term interests. The NATO leadership hopes for the 
evolution of a democratic and prosperous and stable Russia. The 
leadership and the members of NATO want nothing more for the Russian 
people but an improvement in their economic conditions and the 
improvement of their political and civil liberties.
  Madam Speaker, I disagree most strongly with the notion that we have 
to pay off the Russians in order to win their agreement to modify the 
ABM treaty in order to move ahead with our own system of missile 
defense. We should not truncate the natural growth of NATO in order to 
win concessions on missile defense, and we should definitely not allow 
Russian efforts at intimidation or blackmail to dissuade us from 
accepting the Baltic countries as members of NATO.
  Madam Speaker, these were our goals with respect to Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Poland when they were accepted for NATO membership four 
years ago. These will be our objectives with Slovenia, Slovakia and all 
other countries that seek membership and are granted membership in NATO 
in the future.

                          ____________________