[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S13680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NATO EXPANSION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senators were advised by the Foreign 
Relations Committee through a hotline of the desire of the Senate to 
act on H.R. 3167. I have objected, and will continue to object, to the 
Senate considering this bill. It is a very significant bill, and I felt 
obligated to come to the Chamber and state to the Senate exactly why I 
object at this time in the few hours remaining in this session--I say a 
few hours, tonight and tomorrow--to proceeding to consider such an 
important document as this.
  The document is an affirmation of a policy statement by President 
George W. Bush who said as follows on June 15, 2001, in a speech in 
Warsaw, Poland:

       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 responsibility that 
     NATO brings.

  Basically, I share the President's view on that, but this particular 
document goes on and cites the following. It says:

       Declarations of Policy by the Congress of the United 
     States.
       1. Reaffirms its previous expressions of support for 
     continued enlargement of 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.
       3. --

  And this perhaps is the more significant declaration of policy.

       The Congress endorses the vision of further enlargement of 
     the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on 
     June 15--

  That was the statement I just read--

       and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 
     1996, and urges our NATO allies to work with the United 
     States to realize its vision of the Prague Summit of 2002.

  My views are as follows. I think NATO--and I think every Member of 
this body shares this with me--has done a magnificent job for over a 
half century. It is perhaps the strongest and most effective alliance 
and accord in terms of security that this Nation has ever entered into.
  Last year we had a very significant debate, and that is my basic 
problem; there is no urgency for this. This Chamber should resonate 
again with a strong debate on future membership in our NATO.
  We had several days of debate last year. I put forward an amendment 
limiting the number of nations.
  My concern is there are nine nations referred to in this particular 
document, all seeking NATO membership. That would be 9 plus 19, which 
would come to 28. The debate was in 1998. That is a very significant 
increase.
  This document does not proclaim each is going to be admitted, but it 
gives a strong inference and overtone that could come to pass. As a 
matter of fact, it is authorization to the effect that certain sums of 
money--and I support each and every one of these authorizations for 
funds going to the nations to enable them to continue their efforts to 
increase their military, to strengthen that military, to enable that 
military to become an important part of the overall military collection 
of the NATO countries.
  Before we speak to all nine indirectly and subscribe in whole to the 
President's policy, this body has a responsibility to examine each 
nation, to have a formalization from the administration and others as 
to which of those nations should be considered for inclusion in NATO, 
presumably in 2002. I see no urgency that we should proceed on a UC, 
without any Members except myself so far rising to address this.
  I respect the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was in 
the Chamber, which prompted me to speak, hoping I could engage him.
  The distinguished ranking member has communicated his desire to have 
this passed. I respect both of those fine Senators, but I think this 
deserves very careful consideration. We had hearings in the Foreign 
Relations Committee in 1998 regarding those members that desired to 
join. We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, on which I am 
privileged to serve. I certainly encourage my chairman, Senator Levin, 
to have hearings on any thought with regard to increasing the size of 
NATO and specifically looking at those nations and providing our 
determination, as the committee, to the Senate as to the contribution 
they wish to make and the verification of the capabilities to make that 
contribution, both militarily and politically.
  By the way, these authorizations are contained in the foreign 
operations bill such that they can go forward. It will not impede the 
distribution of these funds.
  From time to time, Members put holds on matters. I take that 
obligation very seriously and come to state with some precision exactly 
why I take that step and will continue to do so for the balance of this 
session of the Congress, namely that it deserves the full attention of 
the Senate, preceded by a debate in the chamber with consideration by 
the two committees that have specific oversight of these matters.

                          ____________________