[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7865-H7877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         GERALD B. H. SOLOMON FREEDOM CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 277, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3167) to endorse the vision of further enlargement of 
the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 
2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 277, 
the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3167 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3167

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom Consolidation Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of 
     Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress declared 
     that ``full and active participants in the Partnership for 
     Peace in a position to further the principles of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the 
     North Atlantic area should be invited to become full NATO 
     members in accordance with Article 10 of such Treaty at an 
     early date . . .''.
       (2) In the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title 
     VI of section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law 
     104-208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress called for the prompt 
     admission of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovenia to NATO, and declared that ``in order to promote 
     economic stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine . 
     . . the process of enlarging NATO to include emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not be 
     limited to consideration of admitting Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, and Slovenia as full members of the NATO 
     Alliance''.
       (3) In the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of 
     division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), 
     Congress declared that ``Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic should not be the last emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe invited to join NATO'' and that 
     ``Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria . . . 
     would make an outstanding contribution to furthering the 
     goals of NATO and enhancing stability, freedom, and peace in 
     Europe should they become NATO members [and] upon complete 
     satisfaction of all relevant criteria should be invited to 
     become full NATO members at the earliest possible date''.
       (4) At the Madrid Summit of the NATO Alliance in July 1997, 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were invited to join 
     the Alliance in the first round of NATO enlargement, and the 
     NATO heads of state and government issued a declaration 
     stating ``[t]he Alliance expects to extend further 
     invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to 
     assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership . . 
     . [n]o European democratic country whose admission would 
     fulfill the objectives of the [North Atlantic] Treaty will be 
     excluded from consideration''.
       (5) At the Washington Summit of the NATO Alliance in April 
     1999, the NATO heads of state and government issued a 
     communique declaring ``[w]e pledge that NATO will continue to 
     welcome new members in a position to further the principles 
     of the [North Atlantic] Treaty and contribute to peace and 
     security in the Euro-Atlantic area . . . [t]he three new 
     members will not be the last . . . [n]o European democratic 
     country whose admission would fulfill the objectives of the 
     Treaty will be excluded from consideration, regardless of its 
     geographic location
     . . .''.
       (6) In late 2002, NATO will hold a summit in Prague, the 
     Czech Republic, at which it will decide which additional 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to invite 
     to join the Alliance in the next round of NATO enlargement.
       (7) In May 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, the foreign 
     ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, 
     and Slovenia issued a statement (later joined by Croatia) 
     declaring that their countries will cooperate in jointly 
     seeking NATO membership in the next round of NATO 
     enlargement, that the realization of NATO membership by one 
     or more of these countries would be a success for all, and 
     that eventual NATO membership for all of these countries 
     would be a success for Europe and NATO.
       (8) On June 15, 2001, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland, 
     President George W. Bush stated ``[a]ll of Europe's new 
     democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that 
     lie between, should have the same chance for security and 
     freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of 
     Europe--as Europe's old democracies have . . . I believe in 
     NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it 
     and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings 
     . . . [a]s we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used 
     as a pawn in the agenda of others . . . [w]e will not trade 
     away the fate of free European peoples . . . [n]o more 
     Munichs . . . [n]o more Yaltas . . . [a]s we plan the Prague 
     Summit, we should not calculate how little we can get away 
     with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of 
     freedom''.
       (9) On October 22, 1996, in a speech in Detroit, Michigan, 
     former President William J. Clinton stated ``NATO's doors 
     will not close behind its first new members . . . NATO should 
     remain open to all of Europe's emerging democracies who are 
     ready to shoulder the responsibilities of membership . . . 
     [n]o nation will be automatically excluded . . . [n]o 
     country outside NATO will have a veto . . . [a] gray zone 
     of insecurity must not reemerge in Europe''.

     SEC. 3. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.

       Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its previous expressions of support for 
     continued enlargement of the NATO Alliance contained in the 
     NATO Participation Act of 1994, the NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996, and the European Security Act of 
     1998;
       (2) supports the commitment to further enlargement of the 
     NATO Alliance expressed by the Alliance in its Madrid 
     Declaration of 1997 and its Washington Summit Communique of 
     1999; and
       (3) endorses the vision of further enlargement of the NATO 
     Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 
     2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 
     22, 1996, and urges our NATO allies to work with the United 
     States to realize this vision at the Prague Summit in 2002.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF SLOVAKIA TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER 
                   THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1994.

       (a) In General.--Slovakia is designated as eligible to 
     receive assistance under the program established under 
     section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) and shall be 
     deemed to have been so designated pursuant to section 
     203(d)(1) of such Act.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The designation of Slovakia 
     pursuant to subsection (a) as eligible to receive assistance 
     under the program established under section 203(a) of the 
     NATO Participation Act of 1994--
       (1) is in addition to the designation of Poland, Hungary, 
     the Czech Republic, and Slovenia pursuant to section 606 of 
     the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title VI of 
     section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law 104-
     208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) and the designation of Romania, 
     Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria pursuant to section 
     2703(b) of the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of 
     division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) as 
     eligible to receive assistance under the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994; 
     and
       (2) shall not preclude the designation by the President of 
     other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe 
     pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of the NATO Participation Act 
     of 1994 as eligible to receive assistance under the program 
     established under section 203(a) of such Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES 
                   DESIGNATED UNDER THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF 
                   1994.

       (a) Authorization of Foreign Military Financing.--Of the 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2002 under section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763)--
       (1) $6,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Estonia;
       (2) $7,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Latvia;
       (3) $7,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Lithuania;
       (4) $8,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Slovakia;
       (5) $4,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Slovenia;
       (6) $10,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Bulgaria; and
       (7) $11,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Romania.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 515 of 
     the Security Assistance

[[Page H7866]]

     Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-280) is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1), (5), (6), (7), and (8) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (9) as paragraphs (1) through 
     (4), respectively.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is 
considered adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3167, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3167

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom 
     Consolidation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of 
     Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress declared 
     that ``full and active participants in the Partnership for 
     Peace in a position to further the principles of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the 
     North Atlantic area should be invited to become full NATO 
     members in accordance with Article 10 of such Treaty at an 
     early date . . .''.
       (2) In the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title 
     VI of section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law 
     104-208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress called for the prompt 
     admission of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and 
     Slovenia to NATO, and declared that ``in order to promote 
     economic stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine . 
     . . the process of enlarging NATO to include emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not be 
     limited to consideration of admitting Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, and Slovenia as full members of the NATO 
     Alliance''.
       (3) In the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of 
     division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), 
     Congress declared that ``Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
     Republic should not be the last emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe invited to join NATO'' and that 
     ``Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria . . . 
     would make an outstanding contribution to furthering the 
     goals of NATO and enhancing stability, freedom, and peace in 
     Europe should they become NATO members [and] upon complete 
     satisfaction of all relevant criteria should be invited to 
     become full NATO members at the earliest possible date''.
       (4) At the Madrid Summit of the NATO Alliance in July 1997, 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were invited to join 
     the Alliance in the first round of NATO enlargement, and the 
     NATO heads of state and government issued a declaration 
     stating ``[t]he Alliance expects to extend further 
     invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to 
     assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership . . 
     . [n]o European democratic country whose admission would 
     fulfill the objectives of the [North Atlantic] Treaty will be 
     excluded from consideration''.
       (5) At the Washington Summit of the NATO Alliance in April 
     1999, the NATO heads of state and government issued a 
     communique declaring ``[w]e pledge that NATO will continue to 
     welcome new members in a position to further the principles 
     of the [North Atlantic] Treaty and contribute to peace and 
     security in the Euro-Atlantic area . . . [t]he three new 
     members will not be the last . . . [n]o European democratic 
     country whose admission would fulfill the objectives of the 
     Treaty will be excluded from consideration, regardless of its 
     geographic location . . .''.
       (6) In late 2002, NATO will hold a summit in Prague, the 
     Czech Republic, at which it will decide which additional 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to invite 
     to join the Alliance in the next round of NATO enlargement.
       (7) In May 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, the foreign 
     ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, 
     and Slovenia issued a statement (later joined by Croatia) 
     declaring that their countries will cooperate in jointly 
     seeking NATO membership in the next round of NATO 
     enlargement, that the realization of NATO membership by one 
     or more of these countries would be a success for all, and 
     that eventual NATO membership for all of these countries 
     would be a success for Europe and NATO.
       (8) On June 15, 2001, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland, 
     President George W. Bush stated ``[a]ll of Europe's new 
     democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that 
     lie between, should have the same chance for security and 
     freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of 
     Europe--as Europe's old democracies have . . . I believe in 
     NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it 
     and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings 
     . . . [a]s we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used 
     as a pawn in the agenda of others . . . [w]e will not trade 
     away the fate of free European peoples . . . [n]o more 
     Munichs . . . [n]o more Yaltas . . . [a]s we plan the Prague 
     Summit, we should not calculate how little we can get away 
     with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of 
     freedom''.
       (9) On October 22, 1996, in a speech in Detroit, Michigan, 
     former President William J. Clinton stated ``NATO's doors 
     will not close behind its first new members . . . NATO should 
     remain open to all of Europe's emerging democracies who are 
     ready to shoulder the responsibilities of membership . . . 
     [n]o nation will be automatically excluded . . . [n]o 
     country outside NATO will have a veto . . . [a] gray zone 
     of insecurity must not reemerge in Europe''.

     SEC. 3. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.

       Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its previous expressions of support for 
     continued enlargement of the NATO Alliance contained in the 
     NATO Participation Act of 1994, the NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996, and the European Security Act of 
     1998;
       (2) supports the commitment to further enlargement of the 
     NATO Alliance expressed by the Alliance in its Madrid 
     Declaration of 1997 and its Washington Summit Communique of 
     1999; and
       (3) endorses the vision of further enlargement of the NATO 
     Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 
     2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 
     22, 1996, and urges our NATO allies to work with the United 
     States to realize this vision at the Prague Summit in 2002.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF SLOVAKIA TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER 
                   THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1994.

       (a) In General.--Slovakia is designated as eligible to 
     receive assistance under the program established under 
     section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) and shall be 
     deemed to have been so designated pursuant to section 
     203(d)(1) of such Act.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The designation of Slovakia 
     pursuant to subsection (a) as eligible to receive assistance 
     under the program established under section 203(a) of the 
     NATO Participation Act of 1994--
       (1) is in addition to the designation of Poland, Hungary, 
     the Czech Republic, and Slovenia pursuant to section 606 of 
     the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title VI of 
     section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law 104-
     208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) and the designation of Romania, 
     Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria pursuant to section 
     2703(b) of the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of 
     division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) as 
     eligible to receive assistance under the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994; 
     and
       (2) shall not preclude the designation by the President of 
     other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe 
     pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of the NATO Participation Act 
     of 1994 as eligible to receive assistance under the program 
     established under section 203(a) of such Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES 
                   DESIGNATED UNDER THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF 
                   1994.

       (a) Authorization of Foreign Military Financing.--Of the 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2002 under section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763)--
       (1) $6,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Estonia;
       (2) $7,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Latvia;
       (3) $7,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Lithuania;
       (4) $8,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Slovakia;
       (5) $4,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Slovenia;
       (6) $10,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Bulgaria; and
       (7) $11,500,000 is authorized to be available on a grant 
     basis for Romania.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 515 of 
     the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-280) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1), (5), (6), (7), and (8) 
     and redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (9) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the House of Representatives 
delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member rises in 
strong support for H.R. 3167, the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom 
Consolidation Act of 2001.
  Indeed, this legislation enjoys the support of Members from the 
elected leadership on both sides of the aisle, including the Speaker of 
the House, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the 
House majority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey); the minority whip, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior); and the chairman of the House Republican Policy 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Additionally, the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the 
ranking minority member of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos); and the chairman emeritus of the 
committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); and 
the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe, the gentleman

[[Page H7867]]

from California (Mr. Gallegly), are cosponsors of the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is also pleased to note that among the 
cosponsors are many Members of the House delegation to the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly, including the chairman of the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus); the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner); the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis); the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lampson); the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bilirakis).
  Also, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), not a 
member of the delegation, who has been very active in NATO expansion 
issue is a cosponsor, as would be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), if we had had their names in time.

                              {time}  1145

  The measure before this body today outlines and reaffirms 
congressional support for further expansion of NATO. In addition, the 
legislation endorses the vision of further enlargement of the NATO 
Alliance as expressed in statements by former President Bill Clinton 
and by President George W. Bush.
  Further, the bill specifically designates Slovakia to receive 
assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and the President 
is authorized to designate, as he deems appropriate, other countries as 
eligible for the assistance under the same program.
  Finally, this legislation authorizes foreign military financing for 
the following leading NATO alliances aspirants. These are not all of 
the aspirants, but these are the ones that the administration has 
requested authorization levels for: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and now Slovakia. These levels that are in 
the legislation reflect exactly the administration's request.
  I think it is important to note that H.R. 3167 does not specifically 
endorse the candidacies of any countries. It simply endorses expansion, 
hopefully at the Prague Summit in the year 2002, for those countries 
which meet the criteria outlined by current NATO members, and they are 
substantial criteria, not easy to meet. I identified a few of them a 
few minutes ago in discussing the rule.
  On November 1 of this year, the Committee on International Relations 
considered and passed this legislation, as amended, by voice vote. This 
Member and the dean of the New York Republican delegation, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), offered the sole amendment to the 
measure during the committee markup, which redesignated the title as 
the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act. This amendment was 
approved, of course, by voice vote in Committee and approved 
unanimously.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member can think of few more fitting legislative 
memorials to our former distinguished colleague who, through his 
service in this body and as a long-time member of the House NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly delegation, consistently championed efforts to 
strengthen and expand NATO. Indeed, Congressman Solomon wrote a book on 
it.
  I would say also that Members should know that he played a very 
active role in the Assembly. He served as the chairman of one of the 
five working committees of the Assembly, the Political Committee, the 
one that dealt with the most controversial and most comprehensive list 
of subjects. He also served as the vice president of the Assembly for 
the maximum 2-year term, and he was proud to be a member of a small 
delegation that President Clinton took to the Madrid Summit when 
decisions were made about NATO enlargement to include the countries of 
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.
  Congressman Solomon was unswerving in his belief that the former 
Warsaw Pact countries, if they meet the NATO criteria, plus others, 
including some of the new nations springing from the disintegration of 
Yugoslavia and nations farther to the southeast, should have the 
opportunity to join the NATO security alliance. He recognized that NATO 
membership for those countries would be critical in maintaining 
stability and prosperity for the entire continent and particularly for 
Eastern Europe. This Member believes that Congressman Solomon would be 
pleased to know that his vision for an expanded NATO continues to enjoy 
overwhelming support from this body.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member, who once again led a House delegation to 
the NATO PA spring meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, this year, was 
impressed with the grassroots support in Lithuania for NATO membership. 
In fact, during that trip, this Member asked a street vendor why he 
displayed a pro-NATO sticker on his cart. The vendor explained that he 
would never forget how a family member of his had been taken to Siberia 
by the Soviets and had never returned. Therefore, because of this and 
very similar incidents affecting thousands of citizens of the three 
Baltic nations in the early stages of World War II, this vendor said, 
That is why I am for NATO expansion--so it can never happen again.
  He is joined by so many people of the former Warsaw Pact countries 
who viewed NATO membership, or the prospect for it, as very important 
to the stability of future freedoms for their citizens.
  Without a doubt, NATO has been the most effective collective defense 
alliance in the history of the world. It has provided collective 
security to the member nations of Western Europe. Therefore, it is no 
surprise that many members of the former Warsaw Pact now aspire to such 
membership. For NATO to continue its expansion is entirely appropriate 
at this time, as is congressional support for expansion, but of course, 
expansion only when appropriate criteria are met, when these countries 
can make a proper contribution to the NATO collective security.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3167.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the cost estimate of the Congressional 
Budget Office on H.R. 3167 for printing in the Record.


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                                 November 5, 2001.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3167, the 
     Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. The 
     CBO staff contact for this estimate is Joseph C. Whitehill, 
     who can be reached at 226-2840.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Dan L. Crippen,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.


               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

     H.R. 3167--Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 
         2001
       H.R. 3167 would reaffirm Congressional support for the 
     enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     and would increase the amounts of foreign military financing 
     (FMF) earmarked in 2002 for seven Central and Eastern 
     European countries that are potential candidates for NATO 
     membership. The FMF spending is subject to appropriation 
     action. The bill would not increase the total amount 
     authorized for FMF in 2002 under Public Law 106-280, the 
     Security Assistance Act of 2000; therefore, CBO estimates 
     that implementing the bill would not significantly affect 
     discretionary spending. Because the bill would not affect 
     direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
     not apply.
       H.R. 3167 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
     would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
     governments.
       The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Joseph C. 
     Whitehill, who can be reached at 226-2840. This estimate was 
     approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
     Budget Analysis.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset identify myself with all the 
comments made by my colleagues concerning our late friend, Jerry 
Solomon. Jerry Solomon was a most distinguished Member of this body and 
his leadership on the NATO issue simply cannot be overstated.
  Let me also commend my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) whose leadership of the congressional delegation to the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly has been extraordinary. He has earned our 
respect

[[Page H7868]]

as the leader of our NATO delegation, and I want to pay public tribute 
to him.
  I also want to acknowledge the contributions to NATO and our 
participation of the chairman emeritus of our committee, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
our current chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has consistently led the way in supporting NATO 
enlargement and for a strong and robust role for NATO in Europe. One of 
the most memorable moments in my congressional service was to fly with 
our former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to Independence, 
Missouri, with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary and the Czech 
Republic when we moved to include those three former Communist states, 
having cleansed themselves of their past as full members of NATO.
  NATO is the longest surviving alliance of all time, and it has 
endured because it is an alliance of free and democratic nations. No 
country was ever forced to join the alliance by a larger and stronger 
power, in sharp contrast to the Warsaw Pact where every single member 
was forced into that pact by the power and might of the Soviet Union. 
There can be no better endorsement of NATO's success and achievements 
than the desire of the newly emerging countries of Central and Eastern 
Europe to join this alliance.
  Now, the post-September 11 era, Mr. Speaker, has brought us new 
realities, and one of them is the critical role that NATO can play in 
the fight against international terrorism. As a matter of fact, 
although we did not plan it this way, my friend, former Secretary of 
State Henry Kissinger, yesterday in an op-ed in the Washington Post 
states correctly that NATO has found its new mission, and that mission 
is to lead the way along with the United States in the global war 
against international terrorism.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I were managing the 
legislation, giving our President whatever powers he needs to wage this 
war. And while we were here in this Chamber, our NATO allies invoked 
Article 5 of the NATO Treaty stating, in essence, that the attack on 
one NATO member is an attack on all members of NATO, and they have 
given us and will continue to give us their support in every 
conceivable form.
  In this context today, I want to acknowledge the Government of 
Germany for yesterday making the historic decision of committing German 
troops to the war in Afghanistan, a historic first for that country.
  NATO members, Mr. Speaker, have also responded immediately and 
willingly to the call by President Bush to cut terrorist financing. In 
this context, let me just mention parenthetically that NATO members 
stand in sharp contrast to the arrogant governmental action of Lebanon, 
which is refusing to give us cooperation in cracking down on the 
financial capabilities of international terrorist organizations like 
Hezbollah. Our NATO allies share intelligence with the United States 
regarding both Osama bin Laden and the entire al-Qaeda network.
  Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, President Bush spoke via satellite to 
the Warsaw Conference on combatting terrorism, where all of the nations 
of Eastern and Central Europe who wish to join NATO were represented.
  Although the war on terrorism is now our top national priority, we 
must remain engaged with our allies on a wide spectrum of issues, 
including NATO enlargement. The next NATO summit in Prague in 2002 will 
be the first opportunity for the applicant countries to formally 
present their bids for membership in NATO. Our bill demonstrates our 
strong belief that this process must not be and will not be sidelined.
  The 10 countries which are hoping to become members of NATO, and I 
will read them in alphabetical order, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Rumania, Slovakia and Slovenia, 
are all seeking membership in this great peace-loving alliance.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
indicated, they will have to meet some very tough yardsticks to be 
judged worthy of joining NATO. They relate not only to having achieved 
a certain degree of economic success and having made a contribution to 
their own defense and the collective defense, but they must demonstrate 
that they are practicing a respect for human rights, religious rights, 
minority rights and press freedom. They have to demonstrate that they 
are free and open democratic societies.
  I want to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that the upcoming summit in 
Prague, where we will be looking at the new applicants for membership 
in NATO, is the first and not the last of such meetings. The Prague 
Summit is part of a measured and carefully managed process of including 
more and more of our European friends in NATO. Invitations will be 
extended to the applicants consistent with their compliance with the 
NATO membership action plan.
  As do all of my colleagues in this Congress, I support a Europe whole 
and free. And I strongly endorse the statements of the 10 applicant 
countries that eventual NATO membership for all of them will be a 
success for the United States, for Europe and for NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about Russia. Following the 
events of September 11, Mr. Speaker, clearly a new relationship is 
evolving between the United States and Russia. Next week we are looking 
forward to welcoming the Russian President, Mr. Putin, in Washington, 
who then will go on for a more intimate meeting with the President in 
Crawford, Texas. There is a whole new flavor to the Russian/U.S. 
relationship, and it is apparent in a dozen different ways.

                              {time}  1200

  We are modifying our previous position of just a few months ago with 
respect to the ABM Treaty to missile testing. The Russians are asking 
that we put an end to Jackson-Vanik, which was historic human rights 
legislation but which has served its purpose.
  I look forward to the day when a democratic Russia will be able to 
explore the possibility of joining NATO; and I think it is important to 
underscore, in dealing with the expansion of NATO, that this is in no 
sense directed at Russia. Russia is no longer our enemy, and we are 
looking forward to the day when it will be our ally.
  I, for one, welcome President Putin's new attitude towards NATO 
enlargement and his statement that he would not rule out NATO 
membership for Russia. Let me say we also do not rule out that 
possibility. This represents an important change, a historic change in 
Russian perceptions of the NATO alliance, a sentiment that we should 
continue to encourage strongly. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to just compliment the gentleman from California on his 
articulate statement, and I appreciate his kind remarks regarding this 
Member. His comments about President Putin, I think, are certainly 
appropriate.
  We have seen very moderate and positive statements on NATO expansion, 
on missile defense, coming from President Putin since the tragic events 
of September 11th. And I think it is very interesting, as I conclude 
these comments, to note that NATO assets, AWACS planes, are sent from 
Europe to the United States today to help our fighter aircraft patrol 
our cities since American AWACS aircraft are deployed for operations 
related to Northern Watch over Iraq, in the Persian Gulf regions, and 
in operations related to Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the dean of the delegation and the person who 
helped me offer the amendment to name this Gerald B.H. Solomon 
legislation.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to commend our former vice chairman of our Committee 
on International Relations, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), 
for introducing this bill, which I am pleased to cosponsor with him, 
and for his strong consistent support for NATO enlargement. He has been 
a true leader in NATO for our Congress.

[[Page H7869]]

  I thank our committee's ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), for his support not only for this bill but for 
NATO's enlargement throughout the years.
  Under the aegis of NATO, the past decade has shown a remarkable 
expansion of freedom in Europe without firing a single shot. It is 
ironic that our NATO allies have invoked the, and I quote, ``attack on 
one is an attack on all'' clause of NATO's treaty in the recent 
terrorist attacks on our own Nation from abroad. We have special 
reasons, therefore, to value the contributions that NATO has made in 
our own defense.
  Accordingly, it is in our own national interests that we need to 
bring as many democratic, stable and capable European nations as 
possible into NATO alliance. This bill makes it clear that the door to 
NATO membership remains open to other nations; and it is fitting, 
therefore, for Congress to ask the President to sign this measure into 
law, a NATO expansion policy declaration. It was in our interest in the 
opening of the East, which laid the groundwork for the eventual 
accession of the Czech Republic, of Hungary, and Poland into NATO in 
the last decade, which, with many of my colleagues, I strongly 
supported.
  I was pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), in making one change to this bill, naming it after our close 
friend and former colleague on our Committee on International 
Relations, and former chairman of the House Committee on Rules, the 
late gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon was an 
outstanding, dedicated public servant, a Congressman who deeply carried 
about our national security and how we came to depend on NATO alliance. 
Accordingly, it is altogether fitting that we name this NATO expansion 
legislation the Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act.
  It was in 1998 that Jerry Solomon authored a book entitled ``The NATO 
Enlargement Debate: 1990-1997: The blessings of Liberty.'' In that book 
he concluded, and I quote from the final paragraph of his book: ``In 
the final analysis, a wider alliance is but a means to the end of 
building confidence and security toward which all of NATO's directions 
are aimed. In an era of profound transformation in transatlantic and 
European security, there can be no guarantees that the values and 
strategic outlook of the alliance can form the foundation for all of 
Europe. Nevertheless, we do know that the NATO experience has much to 
offer as we return to the original broad ambition of NATO and embrace a 
wider community of free peoples.''
  The distinguished chairman of the full Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), has enthusiastically 
supported this bill in our committee; and I very much appreciate the 
expeditious consideration of the bill in committee and the efforts to 
obtain early floor consideration. I thank House leadership for making 
certain that this bill was considered in an appropriate and timely 
manner. It is an appropriate tribute to a great patriot, Mr. Jerry 
Solomon.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued and thoughtful member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
courtesy in allowing me to speak on this measure.
  I have some real concerns about the legislation before us today. It 
certainly is not a lack of respect for the spokespeople on both sides 
of the aisle, two of the most respected Members of Congress in this 
arena, for whom I am deeply gratified for being able to learn about 
international affairs; and it certainly is not any reservations about 
NATO itself. As has been pointed out, NATO, for 52 years, has performed 
an invaluable service for providing peace and stability on the European 
continent. It has been especially critical for the first 42 of those 52 
years.
  But I think the real question is whether it is time for us to take a 
step back and look at some of the underlying assumptions, much like my 
friend from California mentioned a moment ago, in terms of framing the 
question about how we are going to deal with Russia. I think that is 
one of the most critical points that we need to focus on.
  I think it fascinating that the first call from a head of state that 
our President received after the disaster, the terrorist attacks on 
September 11, was from President Putin. It signaled, I think, a part of 
this new era that we are seeing. And before we deal with an expansion 
of NATO or something else, I think it is critical that we take a step 
back, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has said, and take 
a look at the role of NATO.
  In early October, Secretary General Lord George Robertson met with 
President Putin; and neither seemed to see any reason why Russia, at 
some point, should not be a member of NATO. Indeed, as we look at the 
list of countries that we are bringing forward as potential members, 
certainly Russia would appear to be at least as well qualified as these 
would-be member states in terms of its effort to develop its economy 
and its democracy.
  In this context, I think we should ask ourselves why we are moving 
ahead with our expansion plans that could look to those elements in the 
Soviet Union that it is not necessarily consistent with this emerging 
new agenda. It looks certainly like a continuation of Cold War 
encirclement, as we are expanding a military alliance that does, for 
the time being, exclude them, but will extend almost to their eastern 
border. Is there not a more constructive and effective way to show our 
support for democratization in Central and Eastern Europe than 
continuing to build an alliance that looks as though it is arrayed 
against them?
  I must also point out that the continued expansion of NATO is an 
exceedingly expensive endeavor. The weak economies of the new members 
and what appears to me to be lukewarm support for implementing and 
financing the expansion of the alliance by some of our European members 
is going to force the United States to assume more of the funding 
burden.
  A CBO study found that the cost of expansion simply to Poland, 
Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia would be in the neighborhood 
of $60 billion to $125 billion over a 15-year period ending in 2010. 
The United States' portion of this tab was expected to run between $5 
billion and $19 billion. A study conducted concurrently by the RAND 
Corporation found that the total cost of this expansion could be in a 
similar range, up to $110 billion.
  These estimates, I fear, are misleading because they assume that both 
new member states and other NATO members will be willing and able to 
pay for their costs of expansion. I think at a time when we are facing 
severe economic crisis at home, it is highly improbable that they are 
going to assume their share of the burden, and we are going to have to 
make some very real trade-offs in terms of our domestic economy and 
other higher priorities that we have in this war against terrorism.
  Finally, I think we need to be asking ourselves whether the continued 
expansion of NATO is the most effective way to encourage the 
development of free markets and democracy in Eastern Europe. It is a 
military alliance that was critical for its time, it still plays an 
important role; but I am wondering if it needs to be supplemented.
  I strongly urge that this body deal with some of the questions that 
my colleague from California, the ranking member of the committee, 
dealt with, and that we not continue with more legislation dealing with 
the expansion of NATO until we come back and deal with the hard 
realities of the role of Russia and the costs that are associated to 
it. I think the American public deserves that.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who 
followed European and NATO issues long before he became chairman.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this bill calls upon the NATO alliance to 
agree to a robust second round of enlargement at its summit meeting in 
Prague late next year. The bill does not call for the admission of any 
specific country to NATO, but is broadly supportive

[[Page H7870]]

of all seven leading contenders for admission in the next round: 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.
  I will not dwell on the qualifications of the individual countries, 
other than to say each has made great progress in the difficult 
transition from the prison house of communism to the promise of 
democracy in the free market. Forcibly separated from the West for 
decades, each is now reclaiming its rightful place in the Western 
community of nations. It would be shameful, as well as stupid, for us 
to ignore their pleas to become members of the Atlantic alliance.
  For over half a century, NATO has been the foundation upon which the 
security of the West has rested. NATO's continuing importance to the 
United States was most recently demonstrated in this unified response 
to the terrorist attacks of September 11 when article 5 of the North 
Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one member of NATO 
shall be considered an attack upon them all, was invoked for the first 
time in the alliance's history.
  It is my hope that this next phase of NATO's enlargement will see an 
end to Russia's opposition to NATO, an opposition needlessly inherited 
from the Soviet Union and inconsistent with Russia's own desire to 
become a part of the West. For this reason, I commend President Putin 
for his recent remarks indicating his government will not object to 
further enlargement of NATO.
  A robust second round of NATO enlargement will not end our task. Many 
vocal aspirants will still remain outside of the alliance's pacifying 
embrace. And in a speech earlier this year in Warsaw, President Bush 
spoke of a future in which all of the states between the Baltic and 
Black Seas would be welcomed into the Western community of nations. I 
certainly share that vision.
  Thus, even as we admit additional countries to NATO, we must remember 
this is but the latest step toward our goal of creating a Europe whole 
and free, and of bringing lasting peace to that ancient and long-
suffering continent.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), in the spirit of collegiality 
and bipartisanship, knowing full well he will be taking the side which 
is opposed to my position.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am shortly going to display a couple of visuals here. 
The first will be in Russian, and I wanted to present it in Russian 
because I did not want Members to think that I was telling the Russians 
something they did not know about our vulnerability.
  The first of these will show a page from a Russian journal which 
shows an EMP attack on our country. What Members will see is Russian 
language, and they will see something which looks like the sun with 
some rays coming from it, and then Members will see what it does.
  What it does is disrupt our communication system and disrupt our 
power system. See the one on the right is in Russian. What it does is 
melt all of our microelectronics, including our computers. If we think 
about our power grid and communications grid, if we melt down the 
computers, we do not have a power and communications grid. This is our 
translation of it here.
  All that needs to be done is to detonate a nuclear weapon high above 
the atmosphere, and what is produced is something equivalent to a 
simultaneous lightning strike everywhere in the country, or enormous 
static electricity. We see a miniature of this every time there is a 
solar storm. This is many, many times as powerful as the pulses we get 
from that solar storm.
  If the chart would be put out that shows Yamantau Mountain, and these 
two are connected, Members will see these are two closed cities of 
60,000 people. What is a closed city? A closed city is so remote it 
does not have tourists. Nobody visits. They have a single mission; 
60,000 people live there and they have a single mission, and that 
mission is working on Yamantau Mountain.
  If the Russians are going to do an EMP attack on us, they had better 
have Yamantau Mountain because we are going to respond.
  I showed this in Russia. I am not giving them any ideas. They knew 
this before we did. We knew it from the Starfish explosion in 1962. The 
Russians had done more testing and explosions, and they knew it before 
we did. They know more about it than we know about it.
  If they are anticipating an EMP attack on us, and it would be almost 
certainly the first way they would use a weapon because there is no way 
they could do as much harm to our economy and infrastructure with 
ground level explosions as they could do with an explosion above the 
atmosphere, producing electromagnetic pulse.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it makes sense to feed Russia's 
paranoia. I have been told that the reason they spent $6 billion on 
Yamantau Mountain is because they are paranoid, because they do not 
think that we are their friends, when we are enlarging NATO right up to 
their border. And they do not think NATO is friendly because for years 
it was the counter of the Warsaw Pact, and they cannot get it out of 
their head that this is their enemy.
  I have no idea why we think it is productive in terms of our national 
security to enlarge NATO right up to their borders. I am all for a 
European friendship society. I just do not want one that slaps Russia 
in the face.
  We are making great strides. Putin was the first foreign leader to 
call our President after the terrorist attacks on September 11. Why 
would we want to do this to the Russian people? For the first time in 
many years, and I went to Russia recently and I saw the mountains of 
flowers at our embassy, it was a very moving experience, here are 
people moving in our direction. Why would we want to move them in the 
other direction?
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to enlarge NATO, let us have Russia as a 
member. If we do not have Russia as a member, let us not enlarge it. It 
is threatening to our national security and it is not in our long-term 
national security interest.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and 
the vice chairman of the Defense Security Committee of the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Armed 
Services and as vice chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly, I stand 
in strong support of this Gerald Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 
2001.
  I think it is appropriate that we would name this after Jerry 
Solomon. It has been said before, and I will not belabor it, but Jerry 
believed so strongly that when democratic free societies worked 
together in a security alliance, the world is a safer place to be. He 
promoted this idea. Not that he wanted to enlarge NATO just to be 
enlarging NATO, just to have more numbers, but that every NATO member 
must bring something to the table, something not only for their own 
security, but for the security of the NATO alliance.
  It is difficult to depart from the memories of September 11. Almost 
everything we do in this Chamber now is viewed through the scope of 
terrorism. Just like the threat of communism, the catalyst for NATO, 
current threat reaffirmed the need of a strong transatlantic alliance 
for the protection of free societies all around the world. By endorsing 
expansion, we are sending a message to those who decry democracy and 
freedom.
  As the response to September 11 has shown, an attack on one is an 
attack on all. It is very relevant in our redefined geopolitical world. 
We could easily conclude in this body that NATO has more of a purpose 
against terrorism than it did against communism. With a time-tested 
formula and victories under our belt, we would be foolish to turn our 
backs on those who aspire to join the greatest alliance history has 
ever known.
  A little more than a month ago in Ottawa, Canada, I had the privilege 
of speaking to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's Defense Committee, and 
in my remarks I spoke about how we, being NATO, must look forward and 
come together as a family of nations.

[[Page H7871]]

 The worst of times, as we have seen, separate the civilized world from 
the uncivilized. As nations that respect and honor freedom, democracy 
and decency, we must join together and form an unbreakable bond against 
terrorism.
  Terrorism has been a plague on our world for far too long. Every 
nation in the alliance has been on the receiving end of terrorist 
attacks, ranging from the brutal to the barbaric. We have watched 
airplane hijackers negotiate with guns, we have seen truck bombs 
explode on embassy grounds, we have seen extremists raid an Olympic 
village, plane wreckage in Lockerbie, Scotland, car bombs on the 
streets of London and Belfast, and a gaping hole in the hull of an 
American warship.
  When I finished my speech, there was overwhelming support from not 
only the NATO nations represented there but from the observers as well; 
from the French who oftentimes do not agree with us on things, and the 
second one to speak after I had spoken was a Russian observer who 
pledged strong support to this effort.
  We need NATO now maybe more than ever. I think we need to support the 
further enlargement of the NATO Alliance. I urge passage of this 
resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who in this last year has joined the delegation 
to the Parliamentary Assembly, and has done an outstanding job and has 
had a personal outreach program to Lithuania and to the Baltic states 
for some period of time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3167, the Gerald 
Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. I am a proud cosponsor of 
this legislation which memorializes congressional support for further 
NATO expansion that is set to take place at the 2002 Prague Summit.
  This is in line with the President's intent stated on his trip to 
Warsaw, Poland, and I quote, ``I believe in NATO membership for all of 
Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the 
responsibility that NATO brings. As we plan the next NATO Summit in 
2002, we should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how 
much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.''
  He also stated that he envisioned a NATO that extends from the Baltic 
to the Black Sea, a NATO whole, free and secure.
  As chairman of the Baltic Caucus and a member of the NATO 
Parliamentary Assembly, I am a strong supporter of the NATO 
enlargement, especially for the Baltic states. In the wake of September 
11, I believe that enlisting the talents of the Baltics and others who 
are eager to make contributions to NATO will be instrumental to 
defeating terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, let me share a few photos. This is a photo of the border 
when I served in West Germany, the border between West Germany and 
Czechoslovakia. This is the old world. As many of my colleagues have 
said, in the spring of this year, we attended the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly in Lithuania. This is a new vision of Europe, and these are 
photos of citizens with signs saying NATO, Lithuania, okay, good; The 
victims of the gulags are calling for justice; The pact of Molotov-
Ribentropo is our past. NATO is our future. And the youth were present 
in these signs of public display in support of NATO.
  Another thing that we learned on our trips is that the countries who 
are recently now members, countries like Poland, have a better 
relationship with Russia now since they are under the NATO Alliance. 
And they have better relations and better trade, and it has helped the 
stability of Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the Committee on International Relations 
for their leadership on this issue. I would also like to commend the 
committee for naming this act after our recently passed colleague, 
Jerry Solomon. This is fitting since Congressman Solomon was one of the 
first in Congress to recognize that NATO membership for former Warsaw 
Pact countries was essential for maintaining stability in Eastern 
Europe.
  On our Statue of Liberty it says, ``Give me your tired, your poor, 
your huddled masses yearning to breath free.'' With NATO expansion, the 
countries that are yearning to breath free can do this under the NATO 
Alliance. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3167.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), who has been very much interested in NATO 
membership for a number of countries of Eastern and Central Europe, and 
has played a special role in outreach to Slovakia.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3167. I am 
especially pleased that this legislation includes a provision to 
recommend Slovakia for full NATO membership.
  As the grandson of Slovak-American immigrants, I have carefully 
followed the Slovak Republic's difficult transition from the former 
Soviet bloc to a free and independent nation. The dramatic changes from 
a socialistic government and a managed economy to an open democracy and 
free market enterprise system have been a challenge for this new 
nation.
  Since January of 1993, the Slovaks have made great progress in 
joining the European and Western family of nations. Slovakia has been 
recognized for its economic and political progress by admission last 
September to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
  The Slovak Republic is also a leading contender today for future 
membership in the European Union. While international economic 
integration is vital to Slovakia's future, it is critical that this 
strategically located Central European nation be a part of NATO.
  While in the past I have urged leaders of the new Slovak Republic to 
primarily focus on issues and admissions to organizations related to 
international economic cooperation, I did so coming from a nation and 
background that always felt secure from the standpoint of national 
security. At times in the past I could not understand the preoccupation 
with membership in NATO by Slovak leaders.
  As I learned more over the years of the history of the Slovak people 
and their domination and suppression, I realized why they were so 
concerned and so dedicated to a security relationship with NATO.

                              {time}  1230

  Slovakia had lost its freedom and independence and security in the 
past. They did not want to risk that possibility in the future. The 
events of September 11 made me recognize why Slovakia and its people 
were so right. Nothing is more vital than national security. The other 
countries under this bill also, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, 
Romania and Bulgaria, also seek entry into NATO for exactly the same 
reason. In the interest of our United States national security, in the 
interest of those who have lost and regained their independence and 
also regained their national identity, and in the interest of world 
security, I urge the passage of this legislation.
  I again commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and also honor the memory of 
our departed colleague, Jerry Solomon.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
time. I, unfortunately, am going to say some words about this 
legislation that are not quite consistent with the views that have been 
heard on the floor.
  I am in opposition to this bill. I certainly want to honor the memory 
of our departed colleague, Congressman Solomon; but I am opposed to the 
expansion of NATO. I was opposed under President Clinton, and I 
continue to oppose expansion under President Bush. The countries named 
in this bill for NATO candidacy have made incredible progress since the 
fall of the Soviet Union toward Western ideals and economics, but it 
should not make them automatically superior candidates for NATO.
  First of all, NATO is founded on the premise of collective defense. 
These countries are still undergoing major political and economic 
changes, and I do not think we should be promising to go to war on 
behalf of countries when we do not know what kind of conflicts we may 
be drawn into.
  Second, NATO was created to defend against the Soviet Union, a threat 
that

[[Page H7872]]

obviously no longer exists. If at this critical time the U.S. is 
seeking cooperation from Russia, it is counterproductive in my opinion 
to take actions that Russia would perceive to be aggressive. In this 
legislation that is before us today, we are talking about admitting 
into NATO countries that would bring NATO right next to the border with 
Russia.
  Thirdly, the expansion would put the strategic advantage of the 
alliance at risk. NATO was created for rapid Allied response to a 
threat. Its tactical strength will be compromised when the inclusion 
countries with inexperienced militaries make it more difficult to 
mobilize. The high cost of NATO expansion would also divert U.S. 
defense investment to militaries of foreign countries at a time when we 
should be focusing on our own. And there are other institutions that 
are more valuable to the Eastern European countries than NATO, the 
European Union, the World Trade Organization, and other international 
institutions that will help promote their economic and democratic 
development. NATO expansion will drain their treasuries toward massive 
military expenditures to come up to NATO's standards.
  The bottom line is that NATO expansion is more of a liability than an 
opportunity for the United States and for the countries this bill seeks 
to add to the alliance. For that reason, I will oppose the legislation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have 
brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I 
deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to 
this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it 
is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I 
would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, 
every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should 
have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything 
conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse 
those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in 
organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us 
and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and 
we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for 
our country.
  I think the bill is motivated for two reasons. One is to increase the 
sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, who will be the greatest 
influence on the commercial aspects of Eastern Europe, and so there is 
a commercial interest there, as well as in this bill there is $55 
million of foreign aid which I think a lot of Americans would challenge 
under these circumstances whether or not we should be sending another 
$55 million overseas.
  We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the 
Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should 
be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in 
search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and 
Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start 
the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the 
Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should 
never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this 
was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I 
think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that 
we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of 
Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I 
see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware 
of.
  But overall I oppose this because I support a position of a foreign 
policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of 
interest of the United States. I know the other side of the argument, 
that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention 
and many, many entangling alliances. I disagree with that because I 
think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread 
too thin and finally we get too poor. I think we are starting to see 
signs of this. We have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different 
countries. When the crisis hit with the New York disaster, it turned 
out that our planes were so spread out around the world that it was 
necessary for our allies to come in and help us. This is used by those 
who disagree with me as a positive, to say, ``See, it works. NATO is 
wonderful. They'll even come and help us out.'' I see it as sad and 
tragic that we spent last year, I think it was over $325 billion for 
national defense, and we did not even have an AWACS plane to protect 
us.
  During that time when we had our tragedy in New York, we probably had 
cities that we paid to protect better than our own cities. If planes 
went awry or astray in Korea or Haiti or wherever, I think that they 
probably would have been shot down. I see this as a tragedy.
  I hope we will all give some consideration for nonintervention.
  Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history's great 
ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great 
surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the 
communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. 
The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable 
treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed.
  With this victory, however, NATO's raison d'etre was destroyed. The 
alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 
had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO 
bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and 
protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was 
NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this ``new'' NATO 
began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like 
economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the 
Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it 
would concern itself with ``economic, social and political difficulties 
. . . ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate 
or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the 
dissolution of states.'' The new name of the NATO game was 
``interventionism''; defense was now passe.
  Nowhere was this ``new NATO'' more starkly in evidence than in 
Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, 
acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing 
Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO 
member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and 
relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO 
intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the 
promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans 
indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against 
the will of those who will live in them.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of 
a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former 
Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. 
While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies 
that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective 
members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business 
is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the 
Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their 
military affairs.
  According to the Department of Defense's latest available figures, 
there are more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel deployed overseas 
on six continents in 141 nations. It is little wonder, then, that when 
a crisis hit our own shores--the treacherous attacks of September 11--
we were forced to call on foreign countries to defend American 
airspace! Our military is spread so thin meddling in every corner of 
the globe, that defense of our own homeland is being carried out by 
foreigners.
  Rather than offer our blessings and open our pocketbooks for the 
further expansion of NATO, the United States should get out of this 
outdated and interventionist organization. American foreign policy has 
been most successful when it focuses on the simple principles of 
friendship and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with 
none.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
express a couple of concerns that I have

[[Page H7873]]

about this measure that is before us this afternoon. It has been said a 
number of times on the floor here today that the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization has been the most successful military alliance in history. 
I think that that is indisputable. It was created in the aftermath of 
the Second World War to deal with a set of geopolitical circumstances 
that presented themselves to the world at that time. Over the course of 
the succeeding 55 years, NATO has served Europe, the United States, 
Canada and indeed the world very, very well. It prevented a third world 
war. And ultimately it was NATO and other factors that resulted in a 
very definitive change within the Soviet Union.
  But now we are faced with a different set of circumstances. The 
geopolitical world in which we live today is in no way similar to that 
which confronted the West and other nations at the close of the Second 
World War. We ought not to be thinking about expanding an entity that 
was created for a different need and a different purpose at a different 
time. We ought to be thinking more about the circumstances in which we 
find ourselves today. And while one might argue that expanding NATO in 
the way that we have done recently and may do again in the context of 
this suggestion here, this proposal, might not do any harm, the fact of 
the matter is that at the very least it diminishes our likelihood to 
think of the world in different ways, and that is really what we ought 
to do.
  NATO served us. We ought to now begin to put it behind us and begin 
to think about the world we live in in ways in which are necessary to 
confront the circumstances that we have to deal with today. We ought 
not to be doing things, for example, that are insulting or might be 
taken as an insult by Russia, because they are now in a different 
relationship with the United States.
  So I am concerned about this for those reasons, but primarily because 
it will prevent us from thinking about the world in ways in which we 
ought to be thinking of it in order to address the different 
circumstances that confront us at this moment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This debate is really why we need NATO. The reason for creating NATO 
is to preserve free and open societies. The reason to have NATO is so 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) and others who spoke against NATO expansion 
should have the opportunity to speak freely and openly, not just in the 
United States but throughout Europe, throughout an expanding and open 
and democratic Europe. We are creating NATO so people in Latvia, 
Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and elsewhere should have the same 
opportunities we have here. There has never been more need for a 
military alliance dedicated to preserving and expanding democratic free 
and open societies which was more palpable than today.
  We have heard a great deal about building a coalition against 
international terrorism. The majority of those so-called coalition 
members are police states and dictatorships. They will not fight for 
free and open and democratic societies. They may oppose Osama bin 
Laden, they may oppose specific terrorist acts; but they are not in 
favor of what we are in favor of, a free and open and democratic 
society. And the top guarantee of that is the expansion of NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman on 
his comments in closing debate on his side of the aisle today. I would 
say that the gentleman from Texas who made remarks in the well 
certainly makes his comments from a very principled point of view. His 
philosophy is exemplified entirely by his comments here. I respect his 
point of view on this issue although I disagree with it. To the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the concerns he 
raises I think are legitimate concerns, but I would say in response to 
them, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and this gentleman 
have both said in the past, the criteria for NATO membership, set out 
by the 19 existing members, are very tough. They insist on economic 
progress, on substantial movements towards democracy, on transparency 
in defense budgets, on civilian control of the military, and on 
interoperability.
  Some of these countries, even some of the seven listed for 
authorization for assistance, are, frankly, some distance away, 
undoubtedly, from meeting all of the initial criteria. But the prospect 
for membership in the EU, the prospect for membership in the NATO 
alliance itself have been important incentives that are held out there 
for membership to bring about change in these societies.

                              {time}  1245

  I think the House should be proud of its leadership in suggesting 
expansion at the previous round of decisions on NATO expansion made in 
Madrid. The House of Representatives was really the first entity in the 
world to suggest it was appropriate to consider expansion of NATO. And 
as we looked at the Visegrad Four, we found and encouraged very 
specifically membership for the countries of Poland, Hungary and the 
Czech Republic, that had made the necessary commitments and that met 
the criteria set forth. It was only a disappointment to both the other 
body and this House that Slovenia, a newly independent country, was not 
also included in the first round, because we felt that they as well had 
met the criteria for membership.
  Mr. Speaker, I would think as we look for the next year to come 
before the summit in Prague, we may well consider giving our view as a 
Congress on which additional countries seem to have met most adequately 
the criteria for NATO expansion at that summit.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the legislation before us today makes a major 
contribution. Its authorization levels are consistent with those the 
administration has requested.
  Finally I would just close my remarks by citing two quotations from 
President William Clinton and President George W. Bush that are 
actually cited in the legislation itself.
  President Clinton said in a speech in Detroit in 1996, ``NATO's doors 
will not close behind its first new members. NATO should remain open to 
all of Europe's emerging democracies who are ready to shoulder the 
responsibilities of membership. No Nation will be automatically 
excluded. No country outside NATO will have a veto. A gray zone of 
insecurity must not reemerge in Europe.''
  Then, in June of this year, President George W. Bush at Warsaw said, 
``All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and 
all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and 
freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as 
Europe's old democracies have. I believe in NATO membership for all of 
Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the 
responsibilities that NATO brings. As we plan to enlarge NATO, no 
nation should be used as a pawn in the agenda of others. We will not 
trade away the fate of free European peoples. No more Munichs, no more 
Yaltas. As we plan the Prague Summit, we should not calculate how 
little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the 
cause of freedom.''
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being down here 
during the entire debate. I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on Space 
and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science. We have a big discussion 
on the Space Station, which is another international effort.
  Let me say, I certainly support cooperative efforts like the 
International Space Station, and I supported NATO when it was 
necessary. NATO served its purpose. It protected us against the Soviet 
invasion of Western Europe. Now the Cold War is over. The best thing we 
can do now is to try to promote democracy in Russia, and expanding NATO 
goes in exactly the opposite direction. It slaps the Russians in the 
face.
  I believe the Europeans can now defend themselves. We no longer 
should be subsidizing their defense. Expanding NATO just puts us more 
into the position of subsidizing people's defense far

[[Page H7874]]

away who can manage their own defense. It also takes away from our 
ability to cope with the real challenge to world freedom and peace 
today, which we will find in Asia in the form of an expansionary and 
belligerent Communist China.
  Lastly, let us note that we are engaged in a war right now, a war 
against terrorism and a war in Central Asia. Being part of NATO has not 
really helped us. In fact, the billions of dollars we spend in NATO can 
be used by our own troops in that battle, and only a limited amount of 
support has come from our NATO allies, the British and Italians, who 
would be giving it to us anyway. They would be with us anyway, without 
us having to spend tens of billions of dollars a year on NATO.
  While I respect my colleagues, especially Jerry Solomon and the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), I would suggest that expanding NATO is not a 
good idea.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today we debated H.R. 3167 on the House 
floor, legislation to encourage further expansion of the Northern 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Eastern European 
countries such as Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. I 
want to share with my colleagues an opinion piece that ran recently in 
the Washington Post which raises what I feel are some of the critical 
issues regarding continued expansion of the NATO alliance. Written by 
Jonathan Newhouse, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense 
Information, this article emphasizes that the key issue is not the 
future of NATO, but the importance of including Russia in future 
collective security arrangements in Europe. I found his thoughts 
helpful and I encourage my colleagues to review this.

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2001]

                A New Alliance Could Nudge Aside the Old

                           (By John Newhouse)

       The terrorist threat laid bare on Sept. 11 is transforming 
     global security arrangements. Already, it is pushing 
     Washington and other major capitals toward a historic 
     makeover of the security system the United States and its 
     European allies have relied upon for half a century. And much 
     of the energy for that push is coming from an improbable 
     source: Russia--or, more precisely, its president, Vladimir 
     Putin.
       Putin's broad purpose--to link his ailing, self-absorbed 
     country to the United States while moving it into the 
     European mainstream--has been gathering force for some time. 
     Even before Sept. 11, he was taking a more accommodating line 
     on President Bush's foremost priorities--missile defense, 
     modification of the ABM Treaty, and further enlargement of 
     NATO, the Western security alliance. Since the attacks, the 
     Russian's tone has become even more acquiescent, enough to 
     raise concerns in Western capitals that he has maneuvered 
     himself far in front of his national security apparatus and 
     political base. When he meets with Bush in Washington and 
     Crawford, Tex., later this month, the two men can be expected 
     to start a process aimed at moving their countries into a 
     shifting strategic environment. And that move could edge 
     NATO, the centerpiece of America's security relationship with 
     Europe, to the sidelines.
       Well, before Sept. 11, NATO was the object of some tough 
     questions: Did it still have a purpose? Was there a role in 
     it for Russia, and if so, how central a role? A few Western 
     leaders, starting with Britian's Tony Blair, had in one 
     degree or another concluded that Western and Russian 
     strategic interests had converged, and that collective 
     security arrangements that lacked Russian participation no 
     longer made sense. But if anyone was shuffling the new deck 
     after Sept. 11, it was Putin. He was the first to call Bush 
     after the attacks. he agreed not to oppose the use of bases 
     in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in Central attacks. He agreed not 
     to oppose the use of bases in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in 
     Central Asia for strikes against the Taliban. He visited 
     German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and wowed the Bundestag 
     with a speech delivered in fluent German, studded with 
     quotations from Goethe and Schiller, that portrayed Russia as 
     rooted in European values.
       On Oct. 3 Putin had a long private meeting in Brussels with 
     NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, with whom he 
     enjoys discussing security issues. Soon thereafter, I was 
     shown an official account of what the two men said. The 
     conversation pointed up Putin's resolve to anchor Russia to 
     the West, and the intensity of his hatred of the Taliban and 
     radical Islam.
       In the meeting, Putin cited nuclear proliferation as the 
     main threat confronting the world. He said there was a plot 
     afoot to kill Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. If 
     that happened, he wondered, who would control Pakistan's 
     nuclear weapons? And he answered his own question in stark, 
     if peculiar, terms: Osama bin Laden, he said, calling the 
     terrorist leader ``the defense minister.'' As for the 
     Taliban, he said it would be a great mistake to remove the 
     leaders but leave the Taliban in power. The Taliban is 
     Afghanistan, he declared, and proposed a conference to bring 
     together all the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
       But Topic A was the Russian link to NATO. Neither man saw 
     any reason Russia shouldn't be a member. Noting that 
     Robertson was the first to understand that Russia poses no 
     threat to the alliance, Putin said his country should be a 
     primary NATO ally. But he said that Russia would have to be 
     consulted on common security issues, or it would be isolated 
     on the periphery of security, which would be in no one's 
     interest. He wasn't asking for membership as such, but rather 
     a central political involvement.
       Putin declared that Russia would not stand in the queue to 
     be admitted into the alliance, like countries on whose 
     membership nothing depends. Robertson replied that he 
     understood this, but he was no reason Moscow shouldn't apply. 
     Both sides, he said, needed to stop the diplomatic sword 
     dance over Russian membership. Putin restated his reluctance 
     to wait in line, but said he did want a full-fledged, mature 
     relationship with NATO. He wondered if Robertson and Russian 
     experts could work jointly on the question.
       The Russian president tried to highlight the opportunity he 
     was offering the West by telling Robertson that he expected 
     to be in office only four years at most. All his values, he 
     said, were Western. But he warned that his successors may 
     have a different view of European security--thereby 
     underlining up the developing gap between him and other key 
     players in Moscow.
       Robertson noted that the two sides could focus on a few 
     specific areas of cooperation--terrorism, air-sea rescue, 
     Kosovo and Bosnia. He also raised the idea of a conference on 
     military responses to terrorism jointly sponsored by NATO and 
     Russia, an idea Putin liked. The conversation ended with 
     Putin, perhaps revealingly, asking Robertson to pass on his 
     regards to Bush, whose name had not arisen.
       We should hear loud echoes of this meeting in Texas. There, 
     Putin can safely agree to enlarging NATO yet again. Before 
     Sept. 11, he deplored this idea, especially the prospect of 
     admitting the Baltic nations, because he and his advisers saw 
     it as bringing NATO into space that Russians are accustomed 
     to influencing, if not controlling. But this concern becomes 
     moot as he moves to acquire a serious role in revised Western 
     security arrangements and to segue into Europe on his own.
       Moreover, a bloated alliance operating by consensus will 
     not be close to the center of political action. More and 
     more, the center will lie wherever the key players, notably 
     the United States and Russia, locate it. Today's security 
     threats are not military, and NATO is not equipped to help 
     much in the struggle against terrorism and weapons 
     proliferation. Counterterrorism, for example, is much more of 
     an intelligence and police function than a military one, and 
     Washington will be increasingly reluctant to rely on NATO for 
     other than peacekeeping tasks. NATO itself could become 
     absorbed in solving problems between its members.
       Although Putin won't be deflected, he will have to show 
     critics at home some return on his bold move toward the West. 
     Embedding Russia in the world economy is probably his first 
     priority. But accomplishing this will require Russian 
     membership in the World Trade Organization, even though well-
     positioned Russians see the organization as a conspiracy of 
     multinational companies to exploit Russian assets. Putin also 
     wants and probably needs a trade agreement with the European 
     Union. Members are sympathetic, but unlikely to grant one 
     unless and until Putin has maneuvered WTO membership. They 
     need to see Russia establishing itself as a serious player 
     and fully capable of living up to commitments.
       The meeting with Bush could help anchor Russia to the West, 
     politically and probably economically. Putin may expect 
     Washington to advance his WTO prospects by asking EU 
     governments to join in pushing to relax the standards for 
     Russian membership.
       Putin may not object--at least not strongly--to the Bush 
     plan for a national missile defense if he convinces himself 
     that the project may eventually fall of its own weight. 
     Agreeing to kill the ABM Treaty, as distinct from amending 
     it, would be very tough for him. While the treaty is about 
     arms control, it is also seen in Moscow as an agreement 
     between great powers and, as such, of great political value. 
     If he and Bush were to produce a new and verifiable bilateral 
     agreement dealing with steep reductions of strategic weapons, 
     it would play very well in Moscow. Prospects for an agreement 
     of that kind are good, although just how binding it might be 
     is unclear, and the importance Russians attach to locking the 
     United States into a formal agreement cannot be overstated.
       The shell of the egg won't be filled overnight. Putin's 
     romancing of major Western capitals will have to be 
     accompanied by internal reforms, including democratic ones. 
     And he will have to hold up the Russian end of any bargain, 
     especially by helping to discourage the proliferation of 
     truly frightful weapons and playing a full part in 
     interconnected programs aimed at curbing organized crime, 
     drug trafficking and money laundering, etc. Also, in most 
     Western capitals, including London, there are senior 
     bureaucrats who resist major change, especially change that 
     benefits Russia and appears to weaken NATO. France, for one, 
     may have mixed feelings about NATO, but it will see stronger 
     Russian involvement as accelerating movement of the center of 
     political gravity eastward, a shift that has been underway 
     since German unification.

[[Page H7875]]

       Change is nonetheless underway, as Secretary of State Colin 
     Powell made clear in Shanghai last month, when he ventured 
     the lapidary phrase: ``Not only is the Cold War over, the 
     post-Cold War period is also over.''
       (John Newhouse is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense 
     Information.)

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of the Gerald B. H. 
Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, a bill appropriately named 
after my good friend Jerry Solomon, who passed away last month. Jerry 
was a fine man who truly cared about NATO and the leading contenders 
for NATO admission. I support this bill, because I support the further 
enlargement of NATO alliance, as well as the inclusion of those seven 
countries that are candidates for NATO admission. If these democracies 
are willing to meet their responsibility of membership, I see no reason 
why they should not be able to enter this defensive alliance, and join 
their fellow members in preserving peace, freedom and democracy. These 
seven worthy nations are our friends, and I look forward to the day we 
can welcome them as members. I would now like to introduce a speech I 
made in March to the Lithuanian Parliament, in which I made the case 
for Lithuania's inclusion into NATO.

 Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Addresses Lithuanian Parliament, March 2001

       Mr. Chairman, Members of the Seimas, distinguished guests:
       I am deeply honored to be here today.
       Two years ago, just a few months after I became the Speaker 
     of the United States House of Representatives, you were kind 
     enough to invite me to address this Parliament. The 
     opportunity to speak to you was one of the first honors given 
     to me by another government. What made it even more special 
     was the fact that it was an invitation from you, the 
     representatives of the People of Lithuania, a people, like my 
     own countrymen, who love freedom and know its heavy price.
       Last month I was traveling in the State of Virginia--a part 
     of my country that was the home of some of America's most 
     famous ``Founding Fathers.'' One was a man named Patrick 
     Henry. The school children in the United States are taught a 
     famous line from one of Patrick Henry's fiery speeches which 
     he gave during our War of Independence. In just six simple 
     but passionate words he summed up the resolve of a people 
     struggling to be free when he said: ``Give me liberty, or 
     give me death!'' Patrick Henry's Comrades in Arms, went on to 
     sign a Declaration of Independence where they pledged to each 
     other, ``our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.''
       Most of us who serve in the Congress of the United States, 
     and many of you who serve here, have never had to risk our 
     lives to preserve our liberty. But many men and women, on 
     whose shoulders we stand, have done so, on battlefields 
     around the world and even in the streets of our own capitals.
       Once again today, while entering this Parliament Building, 
     I passed the spot where some of you literally manned the 
     barricades and stood your ground to defend the right of the 
     Lithuanian people to govern themselves.
       As Speaker, I often ask my members to make difficult 
     decisions and cast difficult votes. But I have never had to 
     ask them to risk their very lives as some of you have done. 
     To those of you were served in this body during those dark 
     and difficult days, let me thank you on behalf of freedom 
     loving men and women everywhere, for your courage and your 
     example.
       Some things have changed since I was last here. Your 
     ``new'' President is now a successful veteran and you have 
     held Parliamentary elections. The political landscape in the 
     United States, too, has changed. We now have a ``new'' 
     President and a new Congress.
       But one thing has not changed. The bond of friendship 
     between the people of Lithuania and the people of the United 
     States remains strong. Our admiration of Lithuania's struggle 
     for freedom and democracy remains constant. You can count on 
     America's lasting friendship.
       As our new President develops his legislative agenda and as 
     the new Congress works to implement it, there are significant 
     differences between the political parties, differences we 
     debate peacefully, but with great passion.
       For example, my party, the Republicans, believe in a 
     smaller federal government, leaving more power to the States 
     and local Governments and most importantly to the people 
     themselves. We support a tax policy that leaves more money in 
     the pockets of the people who earned it so they can spend it 
     as they see fit, rather than government collecting it and 
     then spending it. Our worthy opponents, the Democratic Party, 
     have a somewhat different view. We respect our differences 
     because the struggle of ideas is the heart of a true 
     democracy.
       But one place where we do not disagree--where our Congress 
     is united--is on the subject of NATO expansion. Democrats and 
     Republicans alike believe in the ``open door'' policy of NATO 
     enlargement and both strongly endorsed the process begun at 
     the 50th NATO Summit held in Washington. Candidate Bush, now 
     President Bush, supports the idea that another around of 
     invitations for membership be issued at the Prague Summit in 
     2002. He made that clear in a letter to President Adamkus 
     last May.
       No democracy in Europe that is prepared to meet the 
     responsibilities of membership should be denied full 
     participation in NATO. And no nation should fear the 
     expansion of a defensive alliance which has done so much 
     to encourage freedom and democracy and preserve the peace 
     on this continent.
       That is why it is worth remembering that the Helsinki Act 
     of 1975--a document heralded as a cornerstone for European 
     security and cooperation--declares that ``the participating 
     states . . . have the right . . . to be or not to be a party 
     to bilateral or multi-lateral treaties, including the right 
     to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance.'' Our 
     friends in Russia, who are signatories to the Helsinki Act, 
     should not fear Lithuania's membership in a defensive 
     alliance like those sanctioned by the accord.
       I pledge to you that if Lithuania invests the resources 
     necessary to meet the requirements of NATO membership, I will 
     do all in my power to bring Lithuania into the alliance in 
     2002.
       I intend to work side-by-side with President Bush, Vice 
     President Cheney, and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld to make 
     this a reality.
       Lithuania has further to go to achieve NATO membership, but 
     we must not forget how far Lithuania has come in 10 short 
     years. This nation has already taken essential steps on the 
     road to full NATO participation. Lithuania continues to be a 
     reliable member in the Partnership for Peace, an important 
     testing ground for compatibility with NATO forces; Lithuania 
     has employed the NATO Membership Action Plan to focus defense 
     resources and establish military priorities; And Lithuania 
     played a pivotal role in making the ``Vilnius-9'' process one 
     of cooperation, rather than competition.
       In addition, you are to be commended on your commitment to 
     national defense spending. Your Prime Minister's 
     reaffirmation of the government's plan to dedicate 2 percent 
     of Gross Domestic Product on defense by 2002 is a critical 
     benchmark.
       Now, the members of this body must make the difficult 
     choices to ensure your national budget reflects this 
     priority. And while budget choices are never easy, the 
     longterm benefits of today's national security expenditures 
     will certainly pay off for years to come.
       On regional security questions, too, Lithuania has shown a 
     high level of commitment.
       Your efforts to seek common ground with Russia regarding 
     Kaliningrad and your relationship with Belarus continues to 
     be handled with great finesse. You and Poland have built a 
     strong partnership. And Lithuania's continued good relations 
     with Baltic and Nordic nations are vital.
       Some are too quick to forget the tortured years Lithuania 
     endured as a captive nation. For five decades, the shackles 
     of totalitarianism bound Lithuania. But you never gave up.
       And for those 50 years, America steadfastly refused to 
     acknowledge this illegal and immoral Soviet action. It would 
     be equally wrong now, for NATO to fail to embrace the wishes 
     of freedom loving Lithuanians.
       During my last visit to Lithuania, I had the opportunity to 
     visit your KGB museum. I must tell you it was a very moving 
     experience to see firsthand the brutal methods employed by 
     the Soviet secret police and the sinister tactics designed to 
     strip this nation of its unique identity and proud history.
       We all pray that this terrible period in European history 
     has been relegated to museums and history books along with 
     the fall of Soviet communism.
       But, sadly, as we witnessed in the Balkans, Europe was not 
     rid entirely of the cancer of aggression. Today in the 
     southern Balkans, as ethnic tensions simmer, Lithuanian 
     troops stand shoulder-to-shoulder with US forces, keeping the 
     peace. Clearly this is another example that Lithuania already 
     is supporting the collective security of all Europe.
       But the American-Lithuanian relationship is not--and should 
     not be--based solely on the traditional definition of mutual 
     security. Our growing economic bond is critical to our 
     continued good relations.
       And with Lithuania's economic reorientation toward the 
     West--helping to slash inflation from 1,163 percent in 1992 
     to less than one percent in 1999--there is no doubt that more 
     U.S. investment will follow. Lithuania rightly looks toward 
     America and Europe, while not disregarding Russia, for its 
     increased economic integration.
       Further, Lithuania's entry in the World Trade Organization 
     and progress toward European Union membership--which I 
     support--are critical steps in your efforts to broaden trade 
     relations. I read recently that the joint Wall Street 
     Journal-Heritage Foundation Index for Economic Freedom called 
     the Lithuanian economy ``the most improved economy in the 
     history of the index''. With a record like that, I have no 
     doubt that Lithuania can achieve every economic goal she sets 
     for herself.
       The people of Lithuania and the people of the United States 
     are bound by a love of freedom, by a desire to defend 
     democracy, and by a faith in the free-market system.
       We are also bound together by the one million Lithuanians 
     who now call America home. Many of the Lithuanian-Americans 
     live in my home state of Illinois, in the great city of 
     Chicago. In fact, it was in Chicago where I first met many of 
     your political leaders, including your President, Val 
     Adamkus.
       Earlier today, I was honored by President Adamkus as he 
     awarded me the Order of the Grand Duke Gediminas (pronounced 
     GET-A-ME-NAS).
       Later today, I will be presented the title of Honorary 
     Citizen of Vilnius. One of America's most beloved Presidents, 
     Ronald

[[Page H7876]]

     Reagan, a fellow native of Illinois, was the first recipient 
     of this title. In 1984 President Reagan said, and it is still 
     true today, ``We live in a time of challenges to peace, but 
     also of opportunities to peace. Through times of difficulty 
     and frustration, America's highest aspiration has never 
     wavered. We have and we will continue to struggle for a 
     lasting peace that enhances dignity for men and women 
     everywhere.''
       Both of these honors I accept on behalf of the many 
     Lithuanian-Americans who have contributed so much to my 
     country, and who keep the great nation of Lithuania in their 
     hearts and in their prayers.
       Our sixth American President, John Adams said: ``whenever 
     the standard of freedom and independence has been unfurled, 
     there will be America's heart, her benedictions and her 
     prayers.'' Lithuania has unfurled the standard of freedom. 
     May God bless you and all the people of Lithuania as He has 
     blessed the United States of America.
       Thank you.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3167 and 
in strong support of the goal of NATO expansion.
  I thank the Chairman of the International Relations Committee for 
expediting consideration of the bill and I would like to associate 
myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I have served as an active Member of the U.S. House 
delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly--the legislative arm of 
this vital organization--for nearly a decade. Over those years, we have 
engaged in active discussions of matters relating to trade, financial 
services, labor policy and engaged our European partners in important 
discussions regarding the role of NATO in such regional conflicts as 
that in the Balkans.
  These vigorous discussions, led for years by our late Colleague Jerry 
Solomon, and now by our distinguished colleague--the gentleman from 
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter--have enhanced communication among our 
governments and thereby strengthened our national security. I must make 
specific and sincere recognition of Jerry Solomon. He was an 
international leader and it is most appropriate that he be identified 
in this legislation.
  In the last dozen years, various administrations--Democrat and 
Republican alike--and Congresses--Democratic-controlled and Republican-
controlled--have supported expanding the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) to include newly democratic states in Eastern 
Europe and the former Soviet Union.
  In the NATO Participation Act of 1994, Congress declared that full 
and active participants in the Partnership for Peace program (which 
provides U.S. military assistance to former Warsaw Pact nations) should 
be invited to become full NATO members.
  In the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, Congress called for 
the prompt admission of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and 
Slovenia to NATO. It also declared that ``in order to promote economic 
stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine. And Congress signaled 
that we should not just be considering the emerging democracies in 
Central and Eastern Europe. But we also should consider the candidacies 
of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia.
  These sentiments were reaffirmed by Congress in the European Security 
Act of 1998.
  Late next year, NATO will hold a summit in Prague, at which it will 
decide which additional emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
Europe it will invite to join during the next round of NATO 
enlargement.
  A few weeks ago, Russian President Putin declared that Moscow is 
prepared to reconsider its opposition to NATO expansion into states of 
the former Soviet Union as part of its changing security relationship 
with the West since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
  Mr. Speaker, a word about our current NATO allies is in order today 
as we approach the two-month anniversary of the murderous attacks on 
America on September 11.
  Americans were enormously grateful and reassured by the decision of 
our NATO allies, in unprecedented action, to invoke Article 5 of the 
NATO Charter. At the time, this was a most important signal that the 
international community will stand beside the United States in our 
fight against terrorism.
  Today, NATO nations are cooperating with our war against terrorism on 
many different levels and through many different activities. This 
should go a along way toward silencing the critics who claim that the 
U.S.-NATO relationship is a one-way street. Here is a concrete example 
of NATO providing important support to America in America's time of 
need.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for H.R. 3167.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 277, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote 
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules 
and agree to House Resolution 262 and on approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 372, 
nays 46, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               YEAS--372

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield

[[Page H7877]]


     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--46

     Akin
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Blumenauer
     Cannon
     Carson (OK)
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Frank
     Goode
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Lee
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Burton
     Buyer
     Conyers
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Ganske
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Larson (CT)
     Lofgren
     Meeks (NY)
     Schakowsky
     Stearns
     Sweeney

                              {time}  1314

  Messrs. STUMP, JONES of North Carolina, CARSON of Oklahoma, PENCE, 
KERNS, AKIN and OTTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SESSIONS and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 431, I was 
detained on legislative business. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 431, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________