[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.
____________________