Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)

[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.

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

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

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.''

____________________