Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4472-S4486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GERALD B.H. SOLOMON FREEDOM CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 282, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A 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.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call
that I will suggest in just a moment not be charged against the bill.
There is 2\1/2\ hours. It is not to be charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I ask what the business before the
Senate is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is H.R. 3167.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support H.R. 3167, the
Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. This bill adds
Slovakia to the countries eligible to receive assistance under the NATO
Participation Act of 1994 and authorizes a total of $55.5 million in
foreign military financing under the Arms Export Control Act to seven
countries--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria,
and Romania.
This bill is a symbolic one. It authorizes funds that have already
been appropriated, repackages them in order to highlight the ongoing
process of NATO enlargement. Symbolism, however, in this case matters.
Millions of central Europeans and east Europeans, and millions of
Americans of central and eastern European descent, will welcome this
restatement of NATO's so-called open-door policy--the policy of the
Clinton administration and which had been continued by the current Bush
administration.
At the end of March, Prime Ministers and Presidents of all the NATO
candidate countries, plus several leaders from current alliance
members, met in Bucharest, Romania, to discuss the next round of NATO
enlargement. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage led a high-level U.S.
delegation to the meeting, which was characterized by a spirit of
cooperation among the aspirant countries, many of which had been
ancient rivals, which itself validated the process of enlargement, in
my view.
Parenthetically--I note that I have said before--even if the
expansion of NATO in the last round did not materially impact upon the
capacity of NATO and security of Europe, it did one incredibly
important thing: Each of the aspirant countries, in order to be
admitted to NATO, had to settle serious border disputes that existed;
had to make sure their militaries were under civilian control; had to
make sure they dealt with, in some cases, decades-old open sores within
their society in order to demonstrate that they were part of the
values, as well as the capacity, of NATO; that they shared the values
of the West.
I would argue that much of this would not have happened were it not
for the aspirant countries seeking so desperately to become part of
NATO. I think that, in and of itself, would be rationale enough to
move. Much more than that has occurred.
Four years ago, I had the honor of floor managing the resolution of
ratification of an amendment to the Washington Treaty of 1949 whereby
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were admitted to membership in
NATO. On the night of April 30, 1998, in a dramatic rollcall vote in
this Chamber,

[[Page S4473]]

the resolution passed by a vote of 80 to 19.
In November of this year, there will be an important NATO summit
meeting in the ancient Czech capital of Prague. Several fundamental
issues will be on the agenda in Prague, among them charting a new
course for the alliance in the aftermath of September 11 and the
antiterrorist campaign in Afghanistan, a qualitatively new relationship
between NATO and Russia and a new round of enlargement of NATO.
Last spring, NATO publicly declared that there would be no ``zero
option'' for enlargement at Prague. Translated from diplo-speak, this
means the alliance anticipates there will be at least one candidate
country qualified for membership at Prague, and that country, and
probably others, will be extended an invitation to join NATO.
I have stated many times, including in the last round, that Slovenia
has been qualified for NATO membership for several years and should
have been invited to join the alliance as early as at the 1997 Madrid
summit or at least at the 1999 Washington summit.
My strong suspicion is that several other countries will be judged
qualified for membership as well, but naming names at this time I think
would be premature. Later this year, the alliance will evaluate how
well each candidate country has fulfilled its so-called membership
action plan and, equally important, will judge the strength of its
democratic institutions and society. By late summer, the list of
qualified aspirant countries should become much clearer than it is
today.
Meanwhile, this legislation wisely authorizes military assistance to
all seven of the candidate countries generally judged to be in the
running at this time and thereby sidesteps the pitfall of prematurely
designating those to be invited.
It seems to me this is not the time for lengthy debate on the merits
of the next round of NATO enlargement. There will be ample opportunity
for a thorough debate after candidates have been invited and their
credentials submitted for ratification to the parliaments of the
current 19 members of the alliance, including us.
The rationale for enlargement, in my view, remains as valid as it was
4 years ago when this body overwhelmingly ratified the entry of Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO enlargement significantly
furthers the process of moving the zone of stability eastward in
Europe, thereby hastening the day when the continent will be truly
whole and free.
The three new members of NATO have made major contributions to the
alliance campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo and lately in the war against
terrorism. Contrary to occasional sensational articles in the press,
they are loyal, democratic allies contributing to the security of the
North Atlantic area.
Finally, NATO enlargement, contrary to the gloomy predictions of some
pundits and some Members of this body, has not worsened our ties with
Russia.
A man I admire as much as any and with whom I served in the Senate,
the distinguished former Senator from the State of New York, Patrick
Moynihan--I hardly disagree with him on foreign policy. The one time we
had a serious discussion and debate was on this issue. He was opposed
to NATO enlargement. The basis for his rationale for being opposed to
enlargement was that this would significantly damage bilateral
relations with Russia at the time we needed to nurture that
relationship.

I argue--not that I was right--that the end result in 2002, after
enlargement--I am not saying because of enlargement--the relationship
between the United States and Russia is better than it was before
enlargement, and it is as good as it has been since the last czar was
in control in Russia. We have a leader in Russia now, who, for his own
reasons--and I am not offering him as a Jeffersonian Democrat--is
leading his nation to an open democracy. I suggest that not since Peter
the Great has any Russian leader looked as far west as this man has and
cast his lot with the West as much as he has.
The predictions of doom and gloom relative to the relationship, for
whatever reasons, have not turned out to be true. On the contrary,
earlier this week, on May 14 at the NATO ministerial meeting in
Reykjavik, Iceland, the alliance and Russia put their relationship on
an unprecedented cooperative basis for creating a new NATO-Russia
Council to deal with a variety of security issues.
The Bush administration strongly supports this Freedom Consolidation
Act. In a joint letter to me on May 7, Secretary of State Powell and
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld wrote that the bill would ``reinforce our
nation's commitment to the achievement of freedom, peace, and security
in Europe . . . [and] would greatly enhance our ability to work with
aspirant countries as they prepare to join with NATO and work with us
to meet the 21st century's threats to our common security.''
Mr. President, I have no doubt that sometime next year this body will
ratify the further enlargement of NATO by an overwhelming vote. For
now, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Freedom
Consolidation Act as a symbolic gesture to support this so-called open-
door policy that has served the alliance and this country so well.
As I said, there will be time for us to debate whether or not the
aspirant countries that are picked in Prague should or should not be
the ones that are picked. I am sure we will have some disagreement in
this Chamber about that. This is not to pick winners and losers. This
is picking the aspirant countries that are known to everyone to have
the most reasonable prospect of being issued an invitation to better
situate themselves in meeting the criteria to be offered that
membership.
I look forward to discussion on this issue. I do not know there is
all that much to discuss right now, but I look forward to discussion of
this issue and to being in the Chamber with my two friends who are here
to hopefully usher in a new round of members in the NATO enlargement
scheme that will take place later in the year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Warner is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have under my control as one in
opposition to this measure how much time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 90 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. And my colleagues have an equal amount, I presume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They began with 60 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, how much time does the Senator
from Delaware have under his control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 49 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will continue to yield for just a moment,
unless responding to questions, I do not plan on taking any more time.
I am happy to yield the remainder of the time to Senator Lugar and
other Senators. I am told Senator Durbin and others may want to speak.
For the information of my colleagues, I do not plan, other than
responding to questions if my good friend from Virginia has any, on
using any more time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I have notified several colleagues who have expressed
an interest in utilizing some of the time in opposition. I wish to
enter into a colloquy. I must say, in my years in the Senate, I do not
know of anyone I enjoy having a colloquy with more than my great friend
from Delaware. I hope he does not disappoint us tonight, but just a
little rise in temperature at some point as we go along.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sure my temperature will not rise as
long as my good friend from Virginia continues to be the gentleman he
always is.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I see my other dear friend from
Indiana. There is no one in this Senate whom I admire more than my dear
friend. I regret we have some differences on this issue.
First, I ask unanimous consent to print in this Record a letter
addressed to me from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, jointly signed
by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, in which they support, on
behalf of the President, the measure before the Senate.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S4474]]

May 7, 2002.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Warner: The Administration strongly supports.
S. 1572, the Freedom Consolidation Act. This bill, which
reinforces the efforts of European democracies preparing
themselves for the responsibilities of NATO membership, will
enhance U.S. national security and advance vital American
interests in a strengthened and enlarged Alliance.
Speaking in Warsaw last June, President Bush said that
``Yalta did not ratify a natural divide, it divided a living
civilization.'' From the day the Iron Curtain descended
across Europe, our consistent bipartisan committee has been
to overcome this division and build a Europe whole, free, and
at peace. The 1997 Alliance decision to admit Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic brought us a step closer to
this vision.
Later this year at NATO's Summit in Prague, we will have an
opportunity to take a further historic step: to welcome those
of Europe's democracies, that are ready and able to
contribute to Euro-Atlantic security, into the strongest
Alliance the world has known. As the President said in
Warsaw, ``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.''
We believe that this bill, which builds on previous
Congressional acts supportive of enlargement, would reinforce
our nation's commitment to the achievement of freedom, peace,
and security in Europe. Passage of the Freedom Consolidation
Act would greatly enhance our ability to work with aspirant
countries as they prepare to join with NATO and work with us
to meet the 21st century's threats to our common security.
We hope we can count on your support for this bill, and
look forward to working closely with you in the months ahead
as we prepare to make historic decisions at Prague.
Sincerely,
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense.
Colin L. Powell,
Secretary of State.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I can get my colleague's attention,
this debate we are having tonight arose because last fall in December,
as our Chamber was quite properly moving towards closing down--the
Christmas season was upon us--I discovered we were about to authorize
$55.5 million to seven nations without a moment's debate.
The time was not there to have that debate. So I objected.
I do not object to the money proceeding to these seven nations. I
have supported it in years before. I support the flow of money. My
concern, I say to my colleague from Delaware, is the rhetoric in which
that money is wrapped in this resolution.
Mr. BIDEN. Excuse me?
Mr. WARNER. The rhetoric, the verbiage, that is in the House measure.
We are about to adopt the House measure, if my understanding is
correct.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I believe that is correct.
Mr. WARNER. It is in honor of a very valued former colleague of the
Congress whom I respect. All of that to one side, I believe the
rhetoric as written and as framed could send the wrong message. That is
the sole reason I am here tonight, because if we were to separate the
money from the rhetoric, or portions of the rhetoric--and this, of
course, is not open to amendment--I would be voting with the Senator.
So it is the verbiage that surrounds this.
I will ask my friend from Delaware a question or two. I am not
entirely sure, procedurally, what it is we are going to achieve by this
vote because the money has already been appropriated. Even though the
Senator from Virginia stopped the authorization, as we know that does
not necessarily stop the appropriators. I share a good laugh with my
colleague because they are a law unto themselves.
This magnificent Senate is predicated on the rules that we have the
authorizing committee, of which my colleague from Delaware is the
chairman--I am the ranking on the Armed Services Committee--and we
authorize. The appropriators then agree or disagree with regard to the
amounts of money, but in this case, as they have done in others, they
went ahead and appropriated the funds. So in a sense, we are talking
about a hollow victory tonight, but I direct my attention, once again,
to the rhetoric.

My friend from Delaware said the open-door policy, but I go to the
letter from the Secretaries of State and Defense which says the
following:

Later this year at the NATO summit in Prague we will have
an opportunity to take a further historic step to welcome
those of Europe's democracies that are ready and able to
contribute to Euro-Atlantic security into the strongest
alliance the world has ever known.

I agree with that. I am not opposed to any further enlargement, but I
do not subscribe to this concept of open door. I say to the
distinguished chairman, at what point does the Senate have the
opportunity to make an assessment as to what each of these countries
bring, so to speak, to the table? How well prepared are they?
What we are doing is saying to the American taxpayer, and we are
saying to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States,
an attack against one is an attack against all. Such new members as we
may admit, what do they bring to the table to participate in, first,
deterring an attack, and then, if necessary, repelling that attack? Do
they bring sufficient to hold their own, or is there going to be an
increased dependency, I say to my two good friends, on the American
military?
In Kosovo, over 70 percent of the airlift was U.S. Approximately 50
percent of the combat missions in bringing ordnance from air to ground
were U.S. Now, that is disproportionate. At another time--I am not
going to belabor this tonight, but if one looks at the NATO budgets,
they are not all increasing, as our President is increasing, by 44-plus
billion dollars, a bill for the American taxpayers, our budget, to
strengthen our military.

I say to my colleagues, they cannot point out one single NATO country
that proportionately is increasing their military budget as great as
ours. So my question to my friend--he used the phrase ``open-door
policy,'' but I presume he subscribes to what is in the Secretary's
letter; namely, ``that are ready and able to contribute to security.''
Am I correct in that analysis?
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for me to answer, the answer is:
The Senator is correct in his analysis as it relates to what the
Secretary said.
Let me speak to the first question, as I understood the specific
question: When will the Senate get an opportunity to ascertain whether
or not the countries chosen to be invited to become members of NATO are
worthy of invitation and membership, and to answer indirectly the
question, able to contribute to our mutual security?
The answer is: We will do that at the time of the ratification
debate. In the meantime, as my friend pointed out, the money has
already been appropriated. The money is already going to these aspirant
countries. I think it should have gone by the authorization process,
and then the appropriations process. That is why I was smiling.
We share a similar fate in armed services and foreign relations, more
in foreign relations, quite frankly, than armed services, where the
appropriators move in the absence of our moving.
Let me be more specific. I argue that, even if not a single state
that was, in fact, the recipient of any of this money, was invited to
join NATO, it is in our interest that the money goes because the money
is going for those aspirant countries to meet criteria we have set out,
that we believe to be in the U.S. interest. It is in the U.S. interest
that every one of the militaries in aspirant countries is under
civilian control. It is in the U.S. interest that they have
participatory democracies. It is in the U.S. interest they have no
border disputes with their neighbors. It is also in the European
interest.
So even if not a single aspirant country meets the criteria that must
be met, as cited by the Senator from Virginia quoting the Secretary of
Defense, it is money well spent.
The second reason we are doing this now is that it is important, in
my view, to continue to display to these European aspirants that we are
serious about considering them. What I do not want to see happen is us
saying, well, we know only one of you are going to get in, and the
other six say, well, what am I doing this for? Why am I making this
effort? Why am I engaged in this? I want them to know we are serious
about this. So even though the money is going forward, you say, well,
they already know we are serious. We have already sent the money. It is
being spent; it is being used. This authorization--which is putting, as
my grandpop used to say, the sleigh before the horse--demonstrates to
these folks that, if and

[[Page S4475]]

when the President of the United States and NATO pick aspirants to join
and the President sends the treaty up for amendment to the Senate, we
are serious about it as well.
This is not a game. This is not a game in our separation of powers--
most countries do not have the same system as we have. We confuse
people a little bit because they have a parliamentary system. We have
an executive branch and a legislative branch and never the twain shall
meet, and constitutionally you have to get both of our
approval. Notwithstanding the fact that the President may say we want
to see Slovakia or Slovenia or whomever to join NATO, that is not good
enough. It has to have a supermajority of the Senate saying yes as
well. This legislation is an authorization after the fact.

I promise there is not a single solitary ambassador representing any
one of the countries who does not have C-SPAN on now listening to us.
They know it doesn't mean much now. This is not going to resolve
anything tonight, tomorrow, or next month, until the meeting in Prague,
and it may not resolve anything then.
This is to send the signal that we are serious, we mean it. You go
out and do the things that are necessary to meet the criteria set out
by the President, and the additional requirements, and we will
seriously consider you. We are in the game with the President.
The third point is the issue of whether or not these aspirant
countries, if invited by 19 members of NATO to become a member of NATO,
the question is, will they contribute to the security of the United
States of America? Or will they be, as my friend implies or states--I
don't want to put words in his mouth--a drag on our military?
He cites Kosovo. It is true what my friend cites about the percentage
of the airlift, the percentage of the air missions, the percentage of
the munitions used, et cetera. But I also point out only 10 percent of
those forces that remain in Kosovo are American forces. Mr. President,
85 percent are European and other willing nations there, keeping the
peace. And I might add that if we do something too well, it is taken
for granted and we forget what we did in the first place.
I remind my friend that before we got into Kosovo, before we went to
Bosnia, there were over a quarter million people killed, women and
children. There were close to half a million people in the hills,
freezing in the middle of the winter and we worried about them
freezing. Every European capital was on edge worrying about immigration
flows. It started this xenophobia about minority portions of the
populations of Germany, France, and other countries.
It is in our interest that there be a stable Europe. It is in our
interest that a LePen is not getting 50 percent of the vote instead of
15 percent of the vote. It is in our interest that the skinheads in
Germany do not become a morph of the neo-Nazi organizations that impact
German policy. They have not. But I believe had another million people
flowed out of the Balkans into those capitals, it would have further
destabilized the political circumstance.
It is true that no nation, none of our NATO allies, have kept their
commitment to expand their military capability as we have. None have.
He is absolutely right. Where does our interest lie?
A number of our colleagues very much want to see us move into Iraq.
It would be very useful if Bulgaria were part of NATO. We don't have to
worry about overflight rights. They are part of NATO. We do not have to
worry about a little thing like we worry about with our fickle Saudi
friends as to whether they allow us to use an airbase we built for them
and their protection. So I argue when we were trying to deal with this
situation in Kosovo, Hungary became a valued ally.
The issue for me is not so much that I think any aspirant country is
going to be able to be the one man for a U.S. Air Force stealth
aircraft moving on a precision-guided mission against an enemy. That
will not happen. If the measure is, can they keep up with our
technological capability, the answer is that none of the countries will
ever qualify. I might add that some of our greatest and oldest allies
may not qualify.

Conversely, though, if the measure is, does their membership in NATO
lend an additional capacity that impacts positively on U.S. interests,
and they pay their way, then the answer to that question is, yes, they
should be a part of NATO. That is a debate I am sure my friend and I
will have when the President of the United States, if he does, comes
back from Prague and says, I am sending up to Senator Warner and
company an amendment to the Washington treaty asking for the
following--1, or 7, or whatever--nations to become part of NATO. He
will because he is so diligent and so knowledgeable about the U.S.
military and military matters. I know him too well. And he should do
this. We are lucky to have someone who will have the ability to do
this.
And then we will debate whether or not they warrant membership. What
does Slovenia bring? What does so and so bring? That is the moment when
that debate will take place.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, and then I hope our good
colleague from Indiana will join, I can see that day. It will be
beautifully embossed, a document on every desk. Do you think the Senate
in that period of time, in that debate, will turn down one of those
countries?
That is the flaw in this process which eventually I will point out in
my direct statement. We are going to be handed a fait accompli. We will
not have had the opportunity, unless your committee or mine--and I
shall press in my committee--have some advance hearings on the likely
nominee countries and using the criteria in the Secretary of State's
letter ``ready and able to contribute to security.''
That is what we should be doing, not waiting until that resolution
comes up. That is an obligation. We have so much invested in NATO. It
is a treaty that has worked beyond expectation. I remember on the 50th
anniversary engaging in that marvelous debate we had in the Senate,
extolling the virtues of this treaty.
What I am trying to do is to preserve it so it remains strong and any
nation that comes in is able, willing, and ready to pick up its share
of the load and carry it and not be dependent, as we saw in Kosovo,
upon the good old USA, its service persons, and its taxpayers.
Some Members around here with gray hair remember things. Do you
remember the Libya operation? Did we get overflights of NATO countries
in that operation? Go back and check it, Senator. Go back and check.
NATO did not open its airspace for that operation. It was a vital
operation at that time.
Do not say to this Chamber that by virtue of a nation joining NATO it
will automatically open the skies, automatically open its borders. No,
it will be the individual nations that make a decision. That Libya raid
is the case in point.
I invite our colleagues, tell me, is it a fait accompli that we will
be handed in November all the panoply, the ceremony, and this Chamber
will get up and reject the Nation? I don't think it will happen that
way.
Mr. BIDEN. Let me respond briefly and then yield to my friend from
Indiana or whoever seeks the floor.
What I think we should be straight about here--I am not implying in
any way the Senator from Virginia is not being straight--is that there
is a growing school of thought that reflects the underlying view of my
friend from Virginia--and, I might add, is made up of some of the most
seasoned Members of the Senate, some of whom are World War II veterans,
men who have been strongly supportive of NATO in the past and of our
military--who basically do not think NATO is worth much anymore.
The fact of the matter is, the indictment that the Senator paints is
equally applicable to Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy--every NATO
nation. Not the new guys. It was the old guys who did not let us have
the overflight, remember?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. The new guys are so gung ho being part of NATO, they would
probably decide to give each of us citizenship if we asked for it. I am
not at all worried about the new guys. I am worried about the old guys.
We should have a debate someday on the floor, unrelated to expansion,
about the utility of NATO because, in

[[Page S4476]]

truth, many in the Defense Department and many--some on this floor--
think we are misallocating our resources to NATO, period; unrelated to
Kosovo, unrelated to anything else.
So I call everyone's attention to the subtext in this debate that
really doesn't relate to new members. It relates to whether NATO has
outlived its usefulness and whether we should be spending billions of
dollars on NATO without any new members. It is a legitimate debate. I
think it is dead wrong, but I think it is a legitimate debate.
With regard to the issue of whether there is a fait accompli when an
embossed document ends up on our desk, I might point out that my friend
from Virginia had no difficulty with an embossed document that was the
single most important treaty in the minds of our NATO allies--no
difficulty rejecting it. It was called the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. It did not slow you up a beat.
Mr. WARNER. Not only didn't it slow me up, it was our committee, not
your committee, that held the hearings that adduced the facts and
brought them to the floor of the Senate which resulted in the rejection
of that treaty. Our committee did that work.
Mr. BIDEN. That may be. We can argue about that.
Mr. WARNER. It is a fact.
Mr. BIDEN. I don't doubt that. You were wrong then, you are wrong
now. But that is irrelevant.
The point is this. I was responding to a specific assertion. The
Senator said: How will this body ever reject something that is put on
our desk that is embossed, that has worldwide publicity, that the whole
world is looking at, that all of our European friends are seeing? How
could we ever reject anything like that?
I point out that we have done that. We have no problem rejecting
things in this place that we don't think we should do. I might add that
we had multiple hearings in my committee--I don't remember, but I
suspect also in my friend's committee, the Armed Services Committee. We
had more than a dozen hearings before we voted on expansion, on whether
or not the aspirant countries were qualified.
Some of us, I think including the Senator from Virginia, traveled to
the aspirant countries, sat down with their leadership, sat down with
their chiefs of staff, sat down with their military and parliamentary
leaders, and looked at their books--literally, not figuratively.

I know I spent, with my colleague Dr. Haltzel, about 7 days doing
that in the aspirant countries: Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech
Republic. I spent that time as my other colleagues did.
So I have no worry that we are going to have time. I am responding to
the point made by the Senator, which is: Hey, look, this is a fait
accompli. We are getting set up here. You guys passed this; you
authorized this in addition to the money already going. What is going
to happen here is we are going to come bouncing along and on December
9, or next January 14, or whatever date, we are going to have an
embossed treaty, and it is going to be done, and there is not going to
be any real debate, and it is going to be all over.
I would say the past is prologue. The Foreign Relations Committee
published a 550-page report on the last round of NATO enlargement. It
contained the transcript of the hearings, a lengthy report on the trip
that I took to Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia,
and many other reports. I do not remember--I do not want to state
something I am not certain of--but I think the Armed Services Committee
had hearings as well.
So there is going to be no doubt there will be hearings. If the
Senator, in Armed Services--if they want to hold hearings, I think that
is a fine thing; no problem. I think it is premature now to hold those
hearings. We had 7 days of debate on the floor the last time on NATO
enlargement.
I understand the concern of the Senator that we are going to, in
effect, be presented with a fait accompli. Maybe his real worry is it
is a fait accompli because he is a Republican and a Republican
President would be submitting this. But I tell you, we Democrats are
going to have no problem. We didn't have any problem with the last guy
who submitted it, and my Republican friends had no problem when the
last guy submitted it, a Democrat. I think it is an unfounded worry. If
I believed the Senator was correct and the Senate is going to be put in
a position of rubber-stamping or walking away, I would say you are
right, Senator. But I see nothing from the past NATO enlargement round
we went through, and I do not anticipate anything in this round, that
will preclude a thorough investigation giving all 100 Members of the
Senate and the American public an opportunity to make their own
judgments about it, whether or not to accept the President's
recommendation.
When I say President's recommendation, if he doesn't sign on in
Prague to the expansion, then there is no expansion. All 18 other
nations can sign on, it doesn't matter. If he says no--no. Done.
Finished. So that is what I mean when I say the President's
recommendation.
I have no doubt we are going to have an opportunity to fully explore
this. My guess is--I make a prediction, which is a dangerous thing to
do. The bulk of the debate on this floor will be why wasn't so-and-so
included, as opposed to why did you include such-and-such country.
But that remains to be seen. The bottom line is--and I will yield the
floor to whomever seeks it--the bottom line is that we will have plenty
of opportunity to debate whether or not the named countries--if there
are any named countries, and there will be, I believe--whether they
warrant the supermajority of the Senate to say: Yes, you are now a
member of NATO because you met all the criteria and including the
paragraph read from the Secretary of Defense's letter.
I further state that the criticisms we can debate in other contexts
that the Senator from Virginia raises about NATO aspirants are equally
applicable to the original NATO members--that is a different story.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a short comment and then I hope
others will engage in the debate.
If the Senators from Delaware and Indiana would be willing to just
strip out a lot of rhetoric which causes me a problem--because I think
for those who do not follow the key debate that we are having, and this
is a good debate--I would simply say I would voice vote the
authorization for this money and let's get on with it. But just take
out this rhetoric which gives rise to expectations in all of these
countries. That is my concern. It gives rise to it. Implicitly it says,
by the Senate voting on this tomorrow: Oh, the Senate has now said this
rhetoric is correct, that all nations should be this, and all nations
desiring it--I think it can be misconstrued and misinterpreted.
If you want the money, sever the rhetoric and I will voice vote it
tonight.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have the votes to win this anyway,
notwithstanding the fact I truly appreciate the Senator's generous
offer. I would be happy to try to accommodate him if I could. You
cannot amend this.
Mr. WARNER. That is by unanimous consent. We could amend it tomorrow.
Mr. BIDEN. The idea of us getting unanimous consent--he can seek
unanimous consent. I imagine there are enough people--I don't think
that is possible.
The bottom line is I understand the Senator. I do not have the same
concerns with any of the rhetoric. The rhetoric of George Bush:

[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.

That is the most shining rhetoric in here. I am not prepared to
support the withdrawal of the President's rhetoric from this
legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Then I ask a question of my friend. I realize you have
the votes. It is going to stay in, but at

[[Page S4477]]

least I make the gesture. But I say to my friend, other than the money,
which I agree should flow, has flowed, been appropriated, to what does
this bill commit the United States and the Congress?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it does not commit the United States and
Congress to anything, except it communicates----
Mr. WARNER. That is an important statement, Mr. President.
Mr. BIDEN. It communicates to all of the European aspirants that if
they meet the requirements in the eyes of the Senate, and if they are
recommended by our President, we will seriously consider their
admission to NATO. We, the U.S. Senate, if they meet what each of us
individually thinks is the minimum criteria or the maximum criteria, we
take it seriously. This is not just a gesture of sending you money to
help you move toward democratization to modernize your military. We,
like the President, mean it.
So if the Senator does not agree with--and I understand--the
statement by President Bush, which I happen to agree with, which I
fully respect, then he should not support this. I happen to agree with
President Bush and the other, as the Senator says, ``rhetoric'' in this
piece of legislation.
So all it commits the United States to is to say the same thing
President Bush said: We believe that all of Europe should be open and
free, and that we will consider NATO membership for all European
democracies that seek it and are ready to seek the responsibility NATO
brings. That is what it commits us to, and that is why I support this.
I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I say, then, Mr. President, the purpose for my initiating
this debate has been accomplished. I respect my President. I largely
agree with him. But you have now stated your views, and I hope my
colleague from Indiana will join you.
Beyond the authorization of these funds, this document does not
commit us--this Senate, this Congress--to anything beyond the
authorization of specific amounts of dollars. It is simply a statement
with regard to the future.
I also received the assurances from my colleague that this body,
through its committee hearings, and otherwise, will eventually be able
to look at each country individually and their criteria by which
eventually they can be judged as to become members or not.
I thank my colleague from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Virginia for the questions as well as the conclusions. I would simply
succinctly join my colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, in saying that S. 1572, the legislation before us now,
endorses the continued enlargement of the NATO alliance and assists
potential members in meeting membership criteria. Very clearly, that
leaves open the question of whether they meet the criteria, and who is
selected, and when that occurs.
But the President of the United States, in his Warsaw speech, talked
about enlargement. He talked about it, but he gave a grand vision. That
was important.
Mr. President, before I commence my statement, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Cochran be added as a cosponsor of S. 1572.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Freedom
Consolidation Act of 2001 because I believe this legislation makes
important contributions to the future of European security and trans-
Atlantic relations by endorsing the continued enlargement of the NATO
alliance and assisting potential members in meeting membership
criteria.
Last year, President George Bush delivered a visionary speech in
Warsaw Poland on NATO's future. He noted that ``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.''
He went on to say that he believed ``. . . in NATO memberships for
all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the
responsibilities that NATO brings.'' And he concluded that ``we should
not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do
to advance the cause of freedom.''
Some believe the United States-European relationship should be
diminished. I can hardly imagine a more strategically shortsighted or
dangerous policy shift by the United States or Europe. Such arguments
ignore a basic fact: Europe and America are increasingly intertwined in
security, economic, and cultural matters. The cold war may be over, but
the security and welfare of America and Europe are closely linked. Our
common goal must be to complete the building of a Europe whole and free
in strong alliance with the United States of America. Now is not the
time to discuss withdrawal. Now is the time to strengthen the NATO
alliance. This legislation--the Freedom Consolidation Act--makes
important and encouraging strides in that direction.
The last round of enlargement was a tremendous first step. The lines
of Yalta have begun to recede. Central Europe is not only free but
safe. And now, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time
to finish the job and make Europe whole and free. It is my belief that
the continued enlargement of NATO is the best means to achieve this
goal. President Bush has laid out such a vision and has committed the
United States to its implementation.
I might add that a reason we are debating this issue at this late
hour on a Thursday evening is that the President of the United States
very much wants to have this legislation as he goes to a historic
summit with President Putin of Russia and as he proceeds on to visits
with European allies.
The President has not only given a visionary speech in Warsaw, he is
about to embark upon an extraordinary trip on behalf of our security
and our foreign policy. He has asked us to consider this legislation,
and to pass it enthusiastically, to join our colleagues in the House in
that endorsement.
Continued enlargement provides an opportunity for NATO to be
proactive in shaping a stable security framework in Europe. Potential
NATO membership has given countries the incentive to accelerate
reforms, to peacefully settle disputes, and to increase cooperation.
These hopes have been a tremendous driving force of democratization and
peace. Those nations who have made the most progress should be rewarded
with an invitation to join NATO. Such a move will ensure that NATO's
aspirations will continue to spur reform and purge cold war ideologies
and dividing lines.
While maintaining NATO's high standards, we should invite those
nations ready to assume membership responsibilities and contribute to
European stability and security to be a part of NATO.
If countries such as Slovenia and Slovakia stay the course, they
would be among the strongest candidates. Given the importance of
stabilizing southern Europe, I also believe we should invite Bulgaria
and Romania. I am hopeful they will continue their remarkable progress
and become strong members of the alliance.
The defining issue will be the Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Estonia. They are among the great success stories of Europe's post-
Communist transition. Their illegal annexation by the former Soviet
Union 60 years ago should not determine Western policy today. If the
Baltic States continue to perform and meet our standards, we should
bring them in, all of them, at the Prague summit.
I have addressed that issue, at least to give my personal views as a
Senator, for the last year. I felt it was important, as the Senator
from Virginia has pointed out in this debate, for us to consider
individually each of these countries, to initiate that debate a long
time before the Prague summit or even before the trip our President is
to take to visit with President Putin.
As the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has
pointed out, he has made a number of trips to Europe to visit not only
with the aspirants in the first round of NATO enlargement but with the
current group. I went to Europe last September for a similar purpose. I
made it a point to visit each of the Baltic

[[Page S4478]]

States to meet with the leadership of those countries, with their
military people, as well as their diplomats, and continued on to
Romania and Bulgaria for an equally interesting and important visit to
enlarge my own understanding of where they stood, what they were doing,
what kind of criteria they understood membership required.
I visited the NATO headquarters in Brussels in January at the
invitation of our Ambassador Burns to address a NATO workshop which
included 10 aspiring countries in a roundtable discussion. Of those 10,
I have identified 7 that I believe are logical candidates if they
fulfill the criteria. But that is a rigorous course. Ambassador Burns,
on behalf of this country, has visited each of the countries that I
have mentioned recently. He has gone through a rigorous outline of what
our anticipations would be. This is not a free ride for any country,
and meeting those criteria will take some doing in each of the seven
cases that I have cited.
This legislation does not make that decision, even if this Senator
and others have come to some conclusions about the merits of various
countries. That is a debate still ahead of us. I would simply counsel
my friends who are interested in this issue and all who have spoken
this evening to continue visitation of the countries, to continue
encouragement of meeting the criteria, to show interest on behalf of
the United States in these countries. Those are the steps we ought to
be taking presently, and they will lead to a formal and, I hope, a wise
decision, long before there is a final Prague summit and our President
makes a commitment, at least of his own resources, on behalf of the
United States.
NATO's open-door policy toward new members, as established in article
10 of the Washington treaty, is truly fundamental. To retract it would
risk undermining the tremendous gains that have been made across the
region. The result of a closed-door policy would be the creation of new
dividing lines across Europe. Those nations outside might become
disillusioned and insecure and thus inclined to adopt the competitive
and destabilizing security positions of Europe's past.
NATO's decision to enlarge in stages recognizes that not all new
applicants are equally ready or equally willing to be security allies,
and some states may never be ready. But the maintenance of the open
door to future membership will continue to be a powerful motivating
force in Europe.
NATO has launched a new initiative to expand cooperation and
consultation with Russia. From my perspective, NATO enlargement need
not be a zero-sum game. One can be a strong supporter of NATO
enlargement and of a new United States-Russian strategic partnership,
as I am. We need to continue to invest in the promotion of the security
and the stability of Russia and the other newly independent states, and
it is in the interest of both NATO and Russia for a democratic Russia
to emerge and to regularize its cooperation with the alliance.
For this reason, I support the Bush administration's efforts to draw
Russia closer to NATO, to deal with mutual security concerns in
reciprocal fashion, and to support Russia's consolidation of a
nonimperialist, peaceful democracy.
If NATO is to continue to be an effective organization meeting the
security needs of its members, it must play a central role in
addressing the major security challenges of our time, which in my
judgment are the war on terrorism and the threats posed by weapons of
mass destruction.
That will require NATO to change, and in a very large way. But the
alliance has demonstrated in the past that with U.S. leadership, it has
the capacity to adapt to new challenges. We must take the next logical
step in a world in which terrorist ``Article V'' attacks on our
countries can be planned in Germany, financed in Asia, and carried out
in the United States. Under these circumstances, old distinctions
between ``in'' and ``out of area'' have become meaningless. If Article
V threats to our security can come from beyond Europe, NATO must be
able to act beyond Europe to meet them.
If we cannot organize ourselves to meet this new threat, we will have
given the terrorists a huge advantage. There is nothing they would like
more than to see Western democracies divided on this key issue. We are
now cooperating closely with our European allies. While we don't
publicize it for understandable reasons, the security cooperation, the
intelligence sharing is unprecedented. Today there are more Europeans
on the ground in Afghanistan than Americans. It is Europe, not America,
that is going to foot much of the bill for Afghan reconstruction. In
those areas, Europeans have been exceptional allies.
But I have a sober understanding of where we differ with our allies
and the hurdles we need to overcome if we are going to succeed. The
Europeans have neglected their defenses. While I detect a growing
willingness to try to remedy that, it is not going to be easy so long
as their economies are in recession. It would be a historic mistake to
let this opportunity to forge a new transatlantic understanding slip
through our fingers. America is at war. The threat we face is global
and existential. We need allies and coalitions to confront it
effectively, and NATO is our premiere military alliance. Therefore,
NATO enlargement should be pursued as part of a broader strategic
dialog aimed at establishing common transatlantic approaches to meet
the key strategic challenges in Europe and around the globe.
Fifty years ago, NATO's founders made a political decision that the
United States and Europe needed a common strategy to meet common
threats. Today we need to make a similar commitment with our allies to
complete the vision of a united, free Europe, and to defend our common
values and interests in Europe and beyond.
President Bush and his administration placed a continued NATO
enlargement at the core of the transatlantic agenda. I ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record a letter sent to leaders of the Senate
from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Don
Rumsfeld.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

May 7, 2002.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Helms: The Administration strongly supports S.
1572, the Freedom Consolidation Act. This bill, which
reinforces the efforts of European democracies preparing
themselves for the responsibilities of NATO membership, will
enhance U.S. national security and advance vital American
interests in a strengthened and enlarged Alliance.
Speaking in Warsaw last June, President Bush said that
``Yalta did not ratify a natural divide, it divided a living
civilization.'' From the day the Iron Curtain descended
across Europe, our consistent bipartisan commitment has been
to overcome this division and build a Europe whole, free, and
at peace. The 1997 Alliance decision to admit Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic brought us a step closer to
this vision.
Later this year at NATO's Summit in Prague, we will have an
opportunity to take a further historic step: to welcome those
of Europe's democracies, that are ready and able to
contribute to Euro-Atlantic security, into the strongest
Alliance the world has known. As the President said in
Warsaw, ``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.''
We believe that this bill, which builds on previous
Congressional acts supportive of enlargement, would reinforce
our nation's commitment to the achievement of freedom, peace,
and security in Europe. Passage of the Freedom Consolidation
Act would greatly enhance our ability to work with aspirant
countries as they prepare to join with NATO and work with us
to meet the 21st century's threats to our common security.
We hope we can count on your support for this bill, and
look forward to working closely with you in the months ahead
as we prepare to make historic decisions at Prague.
Sincerely,
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense.
Colin L. Powell,
Secretary of State.

Mr. LUGAR. They write, in part, Mr. President:

We believe that this bill, which builds on previous
congressional acts supportive of enlargement, would reinforce
our Nation's commitment to the achievement of freedom, peace,
and security in Europe. Passage of the Freedom Consolidation
Act would greatly enhance our ability to work with aspirant
countries as they prepare to join with NATO and work with us
to meet the 21st century's threat to our common security.

We must seize this unprecedented opportunity to expand the zone of
peace and security to all of Europe. It is time

[[Page S4479]]

to finish the job and the next step in passage of this important
legislation is to act, and to act promptly.
Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished Senator from
Ohio.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for
his courtesy. I am pleased to have opportunity to speak today on behalf
of the Freedom Consolidation Act.
I have long supported expansion of the NATO alliance to include
Europe's new democracies, and I believe this piece of legislation sends
an important signal to countries aspiring to join the alliance. The
U.S. Senate supports the process of enlargement that began in Madrid in
1997, and believes NATO should remain open to Europe's new democracies
able to accept the responsibilities that come with membership in the
alliance.
During the cold war, as a public official in the State of Ohio, I
remained a strong supporter of the captive nations, who were for so
many years denied the right of self-determination by the former Soviet
Union. That strong support of the captive nations was generated back in
my youth. As a matter of fact, the first paper that I wrote in
undergraduate school at Ohio University was about how the United States
sold out Yugoslavia at Tehran and Yalta. That grieved me, and I
wondered whether those nations would ever have the self-determination
that they were promised.
When I was mayor of Cleveland during the 1980s, we celebrated the
independence days of the captive nations at city hall--flying their
flags, singing their songs, and praying that one day those countries
would know the freedom that we enjoy in the United States.
In August of 1991, as communism's grip loosened, I wrote a letter to
then-President George H.W. Bush urging him to recognize the
independence of the Baltic nations. Now these countries are among those
being considered for membership in the NATO alliance. I know the
President remembers last year when we were in Vilnius, Lithuania, on
the square before 2,000 Lithuanians. I could not help but think back 15
years and being at the Lithuanian hall of Our Lady of Perpetual Help
and wondering if the Lithuania people would ever enjoy freedom. There
they were before us, and I had tears rolling out of my eyes. They
wanted to join NATO.

Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives with
ties to NATO-aspirant countries at a meeting organized by the Embassy
of the Slovak Republic and cosponsored by the Polish American Congress,
strong supporters of the Solidarity movement in Poland and great
advocates of Poland becoming a member of NATO. The meeting included
individuals from nine aspirant countries, including Albania, Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia,
as well as Croatia, which was formally invited to join the NATO
accession process at the NATO ministerial meeting this week.
Representatives from the Czech and Hungarian communities were also
there, who were also in favor of continued expansion of the alliance.
They came together to promote the merits of enlargement as a single,
unified group, and to deliver the message that NATO expansion is in the
best interest of the United States of America, Europe, and the broader
international community of democracies.
The spirit of that meeting I think is encapsulated in this bill; it
does not divide; it does not endorse one candidate country over
another; rather, it encourages emerging Central and Eastern European
democracies to continue reforms to promote democracy, the rule of law,
the merits of free market economies, respect for human rights, and
military reform. These values are the hallmark of the NATO alliance.
And I can tell you that the progress that we have seen in those
countries toward the issues I have just enunciated would not have been
as aggressive if it wasn't involved in their trying to prove to the
other NATO members that they were worthy of membership in NATO.
I strongly support that message, and I share the sentiments expressed
by President Bush in remarks he delivered in Poland last June, when he
was at the NATO summit in Prague. He said:

We should not calculate how little we can get away with,
but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.

When NATO heads of state join in Prague this November for the summit
of the alliance, three primary items will fill their agenda: First,
discussion about capabilities and the future of the alliance; next, the
selection of new members; and, finally, new relationships with Russia,
Ukraine, and other members of the international community.
As the Senator from Indiana said, without a doubt, the events of
September 11 have dramatically impacted the conversations that will
take place in Prague. As the United States and other members of NATO
consider each of these issues, it is within the broader context of a
changed world post-9-11.
This reality was seen this week when Secretary of State Colin Powell
joined his NATO colleagues for a NATO ministerial meeting in Reykjavik,
Iceland. New threats facing the alliance in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks against the U.S. influenced discussions on Russia, as
NATO foreign ministers reached a historic agreement on a new NATO-
Russian Council, and they certainly influenced conversations about the
urgent need to address the growing capabilities gap between the United
States and our European allies, which I am sure the Senator from
Virginia is very much concerned about.

They also influenced discussions on NATO enlargement, as the foreign
ministers reaffirmed their support of the alliance at Prague.
Although there are, without a doubt, a number of pressing questions
that the alliance must begin to answer, I believe NATO enlargement is
still a high priority because of its importance to U.S. national
security and peace in the world.
I strongly support a statement made by Under Secretary of State Mark
Grossman in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee
earlier this month, when he said:

The events of the September 11 show us that the more allies
we have, the better off we are going to be; the more allies
we have to prosecute the war on terrorism, the better off we
are going to be. And if we are going to meet these new
threats to our security, we need to build the broadest and
strongest coalition possible of countries that share our
values and are able to act effectively with us. With freedom
under attack, we must demonstrate our resolve to do as much
as we can to advance our cause.

Since September 11, the United States and NATO have called on members
of the international community to provide critical assistance in a
number of areas outside of the traditional military realm. While these
do not outweigh the need for improved defense capabilities, such as
strategic airlift capabilities and improved communication systems, they
are nonetheless critical to thwarting future terrorist attacks.
We have seen the benefit of these contributions as the international
community continues to engage in a global campaign against terrorism.
The nine NATO aspirant countries, as well as Croatia, have reached out
to the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. They
have pledged their solidarity, volunteered their resources, and shared
intelligence information with the United States and NATO. They have
decided to not act as aspirants, but as allies, and their strong
support is highly important. Senator Lugar, in his remarks, pointed out
how much help they have given us so far.
As significant as this cooperation has been, the work is not done. It
is critical that countries aspiring to join the alliance continue their
efforts to make progress in areas outlined in the membership action
plan--developing free market economies, promoting democracy and the
rule of law, respecting the rights of minorities, implementing military
reforms, and committing resources to their defense budgets, just as we
are doing.
I have made it clear to all of these countries that are seeking
membership in NATO that it is the MAP, the membership application
plan--we are going to watch what you do, and there is not going to be
any automatic entry into NATO; you are going to have to prove you are
worthy and show us through your actions and also in your ability to use
a good portion of your budget and invest it in defense.

[[Page S4480]]

As a Member of Congress who has long been involved with transatlantic
issues, I understand the importance of NATO expansion to strengthening
security and stability in Europe. I supported the enlargement of the
alliance in 1997, and I will again support enlargement at Prague. I
believe NATO should be open to further expansion in the future.
There are probably very few Members of this body who have visited all
of the NATO aspirants. I have, with the exception of Slovakia. I have
been impressed with what they are doing. I will visit Slovakia,
Macedonia, and Slovenia after attending the National Assembly meeting
in Bulgaria later this month.
Last year Senator Durbin and I visited Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
and were impressed with the commitment they were making to qualify
themselves as members of NATO.
I remember before we attended the OSE meeting in Paris we visited
with General Ralston at Normandy, and he spoke eloquently about what he
had seen when he visited the Baltic countries, with heavy emphasis on
communications, the BaltNet they put in place, which he said was better
than countries that already belonged to NATO, and then being in
Slovenia 2 years ago and seeing the communication system they put in
place.
I will never forget General Kronkaitis, a former U.S. Army General
who is now the adviser to the Lithuanian army, and how he really made
me very proud of how he had inculcated the spirit that he received from
being a member of our U.S. military.
I strongly support and believe NATO expansion demonstrates our
country's commitment to freedom and democracy in the global arena, and
I will continue to promote expansion of the alliance to include
Europe's new democracies which demonstrate the ability to handle the
responsibility of NATO membership.
Ronald Reagan used to talk about trust but verify. Although we have
entered into some new negotiations with President Putin and Russia, my
history makes me a little bit uneasy. One of the thoughts I had is that
now that these countries, which I so longed to have freedom, have
freedom, we verify they will continue to have freedom.
In other words, they have their self-determination, they have
freedom, but the only thing that will make me comfortable before I am
taken to some other place is that we verify this trustful relationship
we have with Russia.
Mr. President, the only way I think we can verify that relationship
is to make sure these democracies become part of NATO. That will assure
me that the big boot of someone will not again step on those nations
that have been through so much during the last century.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important
legislation which makes clear the Senate's strong support for NATO
enlargement in Prague this November.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Ohio. He has
a very clear understanding through many long years of travel experience
and, indeed, his proud heritage. In many debates we have had in this
Chamber, particularly with regard to the Baltics, he has brought an
important perspective, and I commend him.
I am glad the Senator spoke with reference to Russia. I join with my
colleague from Indiana. I hope our President is able to make further
progress with President Putin. They made good progress to date. I am
supportive of the arms control initiatives that will soon be brought to
this Chamber. Ronald Reagan's credo, ``trust but verify,'' we should
all follow.
I remember, I say to my colleagues, by coincidence I was visiting
with Secretary of Defense Cohen, our former colleague, in NATO, sitting
in the council room of the North Atlantic Council when for the first
time a Russian marshal walked in and was seated those many years ago,
and they started a relationship with Russia. Does my colleague remember
that? I also remember there came a time when Russia abdicated that
relationship and walked away from it.
I support the initiatives by the President, but let's be mindful of
the past.
I wish to say to my good friends in the Chamber of the Senate
tonight, I seem to be the sole vote of the conscience that I worry
about this expansion. If we were to admit nine nations, I say to my
dear friend from Ohio, nine nations--and that is what this document
basically says. It sort of endorses, to use Senator Lugar's word, this
document we are about to adopt tomorrow morning endorses--does my
colleague realize that if all nine go in, that will be 28 nations, give
a nation or two; that is just about double the original size of NATO.
I am heartened by this debate because we have succeeded in this
debate tonight to establish, No. 1, that the Senate will have the facts
before it is to act intelligently at such time--I say intelligently, I
also mean being well informed to make an intelligent decision about the
facts of each of the aspirant countries before we hand them a final
document as submitted by our President.
I say to my good friend from Delaware, in his earlier debate he said:
We will have a chance to act. The President will send up a list of
nations, and I was proud to do it last time. I remind the Senator, that
will be too late for the Senate to act in an informed way.
If we examine the record tomorrow of this very fine debate, we will
see he now recognizes that we need time, as does the Senator from
Indiana, and both Senators committed to bringing the Senate through a
hearing process on the facts on which to make a judgment.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield
for a question?
Mr. WARNER. I yield.
Mr. VOINOVICH. From what the Senator from Virginia just said, is it
his understanding that if this bill passes tomorrow, that means we are
automatically going to----
Mr. WARNER. No, and I am glad the Senator has raised that point. It
was drawn up very skillfully in the House of Representatives, picking
selective quotes from our great President, whom I support, but those of
us in the Chamber recognize, and as I have elicited from the chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as agreed upon by
my distinguished friend from Indiana, the ranking member, this document
commits us to nothing more than the authorization of specific amounts
of dollars to the nations that are aspiring to join. That is all it is.
But as it is reproduced and sent across the ocean to Europe and printed
in the papers, I think people can say: Oh, the Senate has now acted;
not maybe in finality, but we are one step closer before we have the
facts before the body.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I must tell the Senator that my support does not
guarantee I will support all nine of those countries coming in because
we are going to distinguish between those that are qualified and not
qualified. As I mentioned in my remarks, I made it very clear to the
leaders of these aspirant countries that they cannot take for granted
that they are going to be admitted into NATO unless they comply with
the requirements of the membership application plan.
I was with the President last Friday and discussed this issue with
him. He made it very clear to me that in spite of the fact he has made
some very strong statements about NATO expansion, he has made it very
clear to those aspirant countries, to their Prime Ministers and
Presidents, that they had to meet the requirements.
I want to make it clear, no one should assume from my vote on this
and I hope a lot of others, that this is a layup shot and all these
countries are going to be coming into NATO because they have a long way
for that to happen.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I draw to my colleagues' attention, ``this
act may be cited as the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act
of 2001.''
What is freedom consolidation? I am not sure. That is what concerns
me. There are a number of phrases in here carefully elicited from
speeches, documents by our President and others, which portray--I know
one of my great loves in life is to paint a little bit. It is like a
montage. It is rather pretty. It is like a great painting, but if you
look at

[[Page S4481]]

it from afar you might say, ``We hear that we're in.''
I am glad tonight the distinguished Senators from Ohio, Indiana, and
Delaware have made it very clear in response to my questions, this
document upon which we are about to vote tomorrow does nothing more
than authorize sums of money.
Mr. LUGAR. May I respond to the distinguished Senator on that point?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LUGAR. I think the Senator is correct. I add that the actual
authorization of money will go to seven of the nine countries.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct that the MAP program refers to
nine, and therefore vigilantly we are looking at those criteria. I
would further offer my assurance that I plan to work with the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee so that
hearings will elicit from the administration what the findings have
been from this MAP program, and that will have some bearing upon the
vote of the Senator for various individuals.
My purpose in giving speeches early on this issue--and the
distinguished Senator has likewise been doing this--was to make sure
the debate was of a better quality than the last time around, when in
fact at the summit some decisions were made in what otherwise would be
called international horse trading. Granted, criteria had been met, and
a lot of debate had occurred, but in fact we are ahead of the game, as
we ought to be.
I respect the Senator's questions to make certain we are vigilant in
getting the facts and evaluating these countries closely.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those comments.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill, but at the
outset I want to make clear what this bill does and does not do.
This bill makes a clear and unequivocal statement endorsing further
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and it authorizes
assistance to aspirant countries.
The bill does not choose which countries will be asked to join NATO
in Prague in November, nor does it prejudge the vote in the Senate when
the treaty changes that includes new members comes before the Senate
for its advice and consent.
We want to pass this bill today to make a strong statement prior to
the President's trip to Europe that the Senate welcomes another round
of enlargement to include those countries that are ready to accept the
responsibilities of membership.
Many nations aspire to join NATO including Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia,
and Albania. It will be up to NATO to decide which countries have met
the criteria of democratic governance and military preparedness.
I want to focus my remarks on the Baltic states, not because I oppose
the membership of other aspirant states. I always confess my prejudice
when I speak about the Baltic states. My mother was born in Lithuania.
So when I speak of the Baltic countries, it is with particular personal
feeling. I have visited Lithuania on four or five different occasions
and have also visited Latvia and Estonia several times.
I went to Lithuania a few years ago, along with my late brother,
Bill. We went to see the tiny town where our mother was born,
Jurbarkas. When we were there, we found that we had relatives, cousins,
that we never knew we had--family separated by the Iron Curtain.
I did not believe in my lifetime that I would see the changes that
have taken place in those three tiny countries. When I first visited
Lithuania back in 1979, it was under Soviet domination, and it was a
rather sad period in the history of that country. The United States
said for decades that we never recognized the Soviet takeover of the
Baltic States. We always believed them to be independent nations that
were unfortunately invaded and taken over by the Soviets.
But in 1979, I saw the efforts of the Soviet Union to impose Russian
culture upon the people in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
The Soviets expatriated many of the local people and sent them off to
Siberia and places in the far reaches of Russia; and then they sent
Russians into the Baltic states in an effort to try to homogenize them
into some entity that was more Russian that it was Baltic.
But it did not work. The people maintained--zealously maintained--
their own cultures, and they kept their own religion, their own
languages, and their own literature and their own dreams. I did not
imagine in 1979 that I would ever see these Baltic states once against
free, and yet I lived to see that happen.
On March 1, 1990, Lithuania re-asserted its independence from the
domination of the Soviet Union. Latvia and Estonia followed with
declarations canceling the Soviet annexation of their countries.
These declarations were not without cost. In January 1991, Soviet
paratroopers stormed the Press House in Vilnius, injuring four people.
Barricades were set up in front of the Lithuanian Parliament, the
Seimas. On January 13, 1991, Soviet forces attacked the television
station and tower in Vilnius, killing 14 Lithuanians. One woman was
killed when she tried to block a Soviet armored personnel carrier. Five
hundred people were injured during these attacks. In Latvia, peaceful,
but courageous crowds surrounded the parliament building in Riga to
prevent a Soviet attack.

The images of crowds of unarmed civilians facing down Soviet tanks to
protect their parliaments in Vilnius and Riga was a powerful message of
resistance that shocked Moscow and resonated throughout the Soviet
Union. Their courage led the way for other Soviet Republics to throw
off the yolk of Soviet Communist imperialism, resulting in the
disintegration of the Soviet Union in August 1991.
Today these three nations have worked hard to become market
economies, to watch their democracies flourish. The fact that they want
so much to be part of NATO is an affirmation of great hope and great
optimism for the future of Europe. As countries like Lithuania, Latvia,
and Estonia, and so many others that were either part of the Warsaw
Pact or even Soviet Republics become [part of NATO, they show the
dramatic transformation into a democratic form and a new democratic
vision in Europe, whole and free.
The Baltic countries have nurtured their relations with the West, but
they have also worked to have good relations with Russia. Despite the
bitter experienced of years of Soviet occupation each Baltic country
has worked to be sure that its citizenship and language laws conform to
European standards, taking care not to discriminate against ethnic
Russians.
As a result of these steps, and because of the United States and
NATO's efforts to engage Russia in a positive relationship with NATO,
Russia's opposition to Baltic membership in NATO has evaporated, or at
least receded to grudging acceptance.
The Baltic countries have also taken steps to fact up to the bitter
history of the Holocaust, when hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian,
Estonian, and Latvin Jews perished, by setting up a Holocaust museum,
teaching about the history of the Holocaust in school, returning Torah
scrolls, and working to restore Jewish property.
If we refuse to enlarge NATO further, we would have told these
countries that despite their epic and inspiring struggle to liberate
themselves from communism, the West had once again turned its back on
them. We must make it clear that Russia is welcome to cooperate with
the undivided, free, pros, and secure Europe that is being built.
Some people have questioned what these tiny countries would bring to
NATO. NATO is not a country club, after all it is a military alliance.
When the Soviets troops finally left the Baltic countries, they took
everything. There wasn't even a toilet seat left in a barracks, the
drain pipes were cemented shut, and the military hardware was gone.
They started from scratch. This has made their effort to building a
military harder and more expensive, but in some ways, it has been a
blessing. The old Soviet ways disappeared along with their equipment.
Western ways of thinking about military organization were welcomed. In
10 years, with the help of the United States, Poland, Great Britain,
Germany, the Nordic countries, and others

[[Page S4482]]

in Europe, these countries have built new militaries on a Western
model.
To be sure, they are small countries, but they have their niche. The
Baltic countries can and will make a positive contribution to NATO.
They are building small militaries with a reserve system that can be
called up in time of war. They have specialized in peacekeeping and
logical support and have participated in missions in Bosnia, Kosovo,
and now in Kyrgyzstan. They each are spending the requisite 2 percent
of GDP on defense, but have also pooled their resources and cooperated
on a Baltic Naval Squadron, a Baltic Defense College, and a Baltic
Peacekeeping Battalion. They have worked together to create a joint air
surveillance network that NATO will be able to use and are contributing
some facilities, including an important former Soviet airbase.
When we ratified the membership of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic, some in the Senate doubted their contributions, worried about
cost burdens, and feared adding these new members would have NATO
cumbersome and unworkable. These problems have not materialized;
rather, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have been our staunch
allies in NATO.
The model of the last round serves as well for this one. I believe we
must complete the job we started in 1999 to expand NATO and cement a
stable, democratic, whole, and free Europe.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of HR 3167, the
Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act. I am a cosponsor of S.
1572, the Senate companion to this important bill.
Today freedom and democracy flourish from the Balkans to the Black
Sea. One cannot help but marvel at the transformation over the last
decade in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries have moved from
members of the Warsaw Pact to allies of the United States in military
operations in Bosinia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.
An issue that has united these nations during this time of historic
transformation has been the commitment to democratic reforms and closer
relations with the United States. NATO membership, the strongest link
between Europe and the United States, has been a cornerstone of the
foreign and security policy goals of each of the member countries.
On May 19, 2000, the Foreign Ministers from nine NATO aspirant
countries met in Vilnius, Lithuania to jointly reiterate their desire
to firmly entrench their nations in the western community of
democracies. Latvia, Lithuanaia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Albania,
Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria were at various stages of readiness for
membership. But from that day forward, these nations have demonstrated
that they could work together to pursue their individual goals for
security. In May 2001, Croatia joined this group--now called the
``Vilnius 10.''
NATO has recognized their aspirations and has made clear its
intention to extend invitations for membership at the Prague summit
this November. Each candidate nation will be judged on its own merits
and progress.
And as the process of NATO enlargement moves forward, it is important
to ensure that it does so in a way that enhances NATO and peace and
stability in Europe.
The standards for new members are most clearly stated in Article X of
the Washington Treaty of 1949 the founding NATO document, which
provides two major criteria for membership. First, a nation must be,
``in a position to futher the principles of this Treaty.'' In other
words, a nation must have a strong and demonstrated commitment to
democratic ideals.
Second, the nation must be in a position ``to contribute to the
security of the North Atlantic area.'' NATO is a military alliance, and
new allies should strengthen, not weaken, transatlantic security.
Economic stability is part of these two requirements for joining the
alliance. Military reforms and military commitments cost money, these
nations must be able to pay for the commitments they make to the
alliance. And economic stability also means political stability, a
theme that has underlined our current debate on trade policy.
Each of the Vilnius nations will be examined on the criteria. I
mentioned above. This leglslation does nothing to prejudge the
decisions that will be made by the NATO member countries on which of
the aspirant nations will be invited to join the alliance.
This legislation unequivocally declares congressional and
Presidential support for continued responsible enlargement of NATO.
This legislation also provides financial assistance, in the form of
foreign military financing, to NATO candidate countries as they conduct
the reform and restructuring of their military forces to meet NATO
requirements.
We must be wise enough to seize this moment of dramatic and positive
changes in Europe, building onto what has been accomplished during the
first 50 years of NATO. NATO expansion will help consolidate the
freedom the nations of Central and Eastern Europe have secured by
including them in the world's most successful alliance, NATO.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today we are considering the
Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act. This bill, which passed
overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives is identical to S. 1572
and has over 30 cosponsors here in the Senate was reported out
unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December of
last year.
The Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act reaffirms the
Senate's support for continued enlargement of NATO, without naming any
names of who should receive an invitation to join. It also demonstrates
that extending security and stability in Europe through the enlargement
of the most successful military alliance in modern history is not a
partisan issue.
The bill endorses the vision of further enlargement of NATO
articulated by President Bush on June 15, 2001, when he stated that,
``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.''
It also endorses the statement of former President Clinton, who in
1996, said, ``NATO's doors will not close behind its first new members
. . . [but] NATO should remain open to all of Europe's emerging
democracies who are ready to shoulder the responsibilities of
membership.''
While President Bush said we should see how much and not how little
we can do, inviting new members into the alliance is a serious exercise
requiring careful consideration of applicant countries' capabilities
and their commitment to democratic values.
When the time comes to select which countries should receive an
invitation to join NATO, we should ensure that the inclusion of a
particular candidate will make the alliance stronger.
In other words, does its military, geographic, political and public
commitment strengthen the Atlantic alliance and its ability to preserve
a stable and secure Europe?
NATO membership is not based solely on military capability. If NATO
were only about aligning the worlds greatest militaries then its
membership roster would include Israel and Russia or China and North
Korea rather than Iceland and Norway.
I think we can all agree that values matter. Democratic values, the
rule of law, religious freedoms, protection of minorities.
When the time comes to look at which countries should be invited to
join the alliance from those participating in the MAP, Membership
Action Plan, process, we certainly should examine what capabilities
they bring to European security, the trans-Atlantic relationship and
the global war on terror.
However, perhaps what is more important than what contribution they
have made to KFOR, SFOR or Operation Enduring Freedom, or more
important than their geography or the overflight rights they have
granted, is what they are doing within their own country.
Are they advancing a democratic society, working to eliminate
government corruption, preventing their country from being used as a
transit for the trafficking of women and children, protecting the
rights of minorities and settling regional divisions?
Is bigger better? It can be.
The countries actively being considered for NATO membership that are
in

[[Page S4483]]

the MAP process all see the value of revitalizing the Atlantic
alliance. They have demonstrated that they are ready to be an ally
through contributions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Every Slovak, Latvian, or Romanian that is back filling NATO in KFOR
or SFOR or engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom means one less
American that is in harms way.
The time has come for NATO to address how decisions are made as not
to repeat what came to be known in Kosovo as ``war by committee'' when
target selection had to be cleared through the NATO capitals rather
than the NATO military commander.
Supporters and opponents to NATO Enlargement agree that the growing
capabilities gap between the United States and our European allies must
be addressed and will be addressed at the NATO summit in Prague.
We in the United States must be able to turn to our NATO allies as
they do us for capabilities to face the threats of today.
The world that we face has in fact changed and we, as well as our
NATO allies, must do the real work of building the capabilities to
address what Secretary Rumsfeld called asymmetrical threats even prior
to September 11.
It seems to me that top on the list of threats that both we and
Europe face is the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction.
At the Prague Summit in November, NATO must properly address what we
can do together to address the threat posed by weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of our new common enemy, global terrorism.
What NATO's mission will be in the future is an important question.
Thirty-six years ago, in ``The Troubled Partnership,'' Henry Kissinger
wrote of the difficulties in the Atlantic Alliance, and queried whether
we and Europe had the same vision for the future of NATO.
Differences still exist, however, we should not jeopardize all that
NATO is by focusing on what it is not; rather we should see how NATO
can better address the threats that we see so clearly since September
11.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when I first came to Congress, Slovakia
and Slovenia didn't exist at all, Bulgaria and Romania were hostile
states in the darkest depths of the Soviet empire, and the Baltic
states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania lived only in the hearts and
souls of their people, their sovereign nationhood snuffed out by Soviet
annexation. This evening, we debate a clear and noncontroversial Sense
of the Senate resolution expressing our support for these same nations'
aspirations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the
alliance we formed to counter the aggression that once placed each of
these nations on the far side of the Iron Curtain, in one of the
greatest organized assaults on our values since we claimed them as our
own.
Our consideration of these nations' candidacy to join NATO at the
Prague Summit in November is a victory for democracy, for freedom, for
what we fought from 1941 until 1989 to bring about: a Europe whole and
free. Our Alliance reflects Europe's continuing and historic transition
from hostile division to a continental zone of enlightened rule within
secure borders. But that transition remains incomplete.
NATO's fate, and that of Europe, rests upon completing the job we
started at the 1999 Washington summit, and which we will continue in
Prague this November. As President Bush stated last summer in Warsaw:
all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltics to the Black Sea,
should have a chance to join the North Atlantic Alliance.
The last round of NATO enlargement demonstrated the importance of the
alliance as a living, vibrant institution, committed to meeting the
security challenges of the Euro-Atlantic region. Cold war-minded
critics contended then that we were creating a new dividing line in
Europe. But the result of enlargement was to extend stability and
security eastwards, into lands where the absence of these qualities has
frequently led to armed conflict in the past.
Critics of the last round of enlargement said NATO's consensual
decisionmaking process would become bogged down by the addition of new
members. But to the extent that consensus over NATO's response to
Slobodan Milosevic's crimes in Kosovo was difficult to achieve, the
newest members of the alliance often provided the strongest support
within our councils for joint military action. NATO's newest members
also made important human, material, and geographic contributions to
the alliance's mission.
Now, critics argue that the new threats of terrorism and mass
destruction bring NATO's mission and future into question. It is hard
to understand why. Yes, America and some of our European allies have
disagreed about how best to pursue the war on terrorism. But our shared
conviction about the common values that require our defense is not in
doubt. NATO is not less important after September 11; it is more
important. For the first time in its history, the alliance invoked
Article V, the mutual self-defense clause binding upon all members,
after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Until very
recently, allied aircraft patrolled America's skies. Today, 16 of the
existing 19 members of the alliance have boots on the ground alongside
American forces in and around Afghanistan. Remarkably, a number of the
nations that aspire to NATO membership have also deployed forces to
support allied military operations. They don't yet have a treaty
commitment, but they are acting like they do, in a gesture of goodwill
that transcends mere rhetoric about our common values by putting men in
harm's way to defend them.
Our fundamental goal at Prague must be to transform what has become a
somewhat divisive trans-Atlantic debate about the role and relevance of
our NATO partners in the war on terrorism into a concrete plan of
action to align the alliance's purpose of collective defense with the
threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--dangers that
threaten the people of Europe no less than the American people, as we
saw most recently in the tragic bombing in Karachi, Pakistan that took
the lives of 11 French nationals.
I believe the hand-wringing in Washington academic circles and the
corridors of Brussels about the alliance's existential crisis is
misplaced. Rather than engaging in a stifling, bureaucratic debate
about NATO's core purpose, we should devote our attention to sustaining
the success our Alliance has enjoyed in deterring Soviet aggression,
bringing a stable peace to the Balkans, and uniting our community of
values. The Bush administration's far-sighted agenda for Prague
reflects an effort to build on NATO's successes in concert with our
allies, in order that its future in the defense of freedom may be as
storied as its past.
The Freedom Consolidation Act addresses the enlargement pillar of
this agenda. We do not require the mere ceremonies of enlargement, and
the new faces it brings to our councils, for fear of institutional
failure, or for lack of some higher purpose. We must enlarge this
alliance to complete the task we started in 1949: to create an
impregnable zone of stability, security, and peace in Europe that is
upheld by our joint military power, rooted in our resolve to defend
this territory against aggression, and inspired by our commitment to
the principles of liberty, to which we pledge our sacred honor.
In doing so, we replace the containment strategy of the cold war era
with the enlargement of our community of values. We relegate Yalta's
division of Europe to the history books. We forge a new Euro-Atlantic
community, transformed by the values we fought the cold war to defend.
And we celebrate the freedom that almost all European peoples enjoy
today as a consequence of our mutual sacrifice.
Our task is to invigorate our alliance with this premise: that the
Atlantic community is not a group of cold war-era military allies
looking for new missions to stay relevant, but a political community of
like-minded nations, challenging the cruel dictates of history and
geography, that is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to
fostering a continent where war is unimaginable and security,
guaranteed--even as it faces new and grave threats to these core
principles. The threats have changed since 1949; our commitment to the
defense of freedom has not. NATO's purpose remains sound, and its role,
indispensable.

[[Page S4484]]

Seven nations are serious contenders to receive invitations to join
our alliance in November. Three more are engaged in a longer-term
process of preparing themselves to meet NATO's membership criteria. I
cannot think of a better example of the triumph of our values, and the
success of the institutions we have built to serve and protect them,
than the urgency with which the aspirant nations now pursue membership
in our alliance. We should welcome them, when they are ready. I believe
the seven serious candidates for this round of enlargement will be.
They hold their destiny in their hands, and we wish them well in
working aggressively to meet the criteria for NATO membership. I hope
we can soon call these nations our allies, in the truest sense of the
word.
While I support a ``Big Bang'' enlargement of the alliance into
northern, central, and southern Europe, I believe the southern
dimension of NATO enlargement is perhaps the most compelling on
strategic grounds. NATO's southeastern expansion into Bulgaria and
Romania would secure Europe's southern flank, enhance stability in the
western Balkans, and end Turkey's strategic isolation from the
alliance. It would help diminish continuing frictions in Turkey's
relationship with the EU, minimizing Turkish grievances over the
question of an independent European security identity and opening the
door to the development of effective coordination between the EU and
NATO. A visionary enlargement of the NATO alliance to the south
combined with the EU's historic expansion to the east would bring about
a new and welcome cohesion of Turkey to Europe. This is in the
interests of Turkey, the European Union, the United States, and NATO.
The most compelling defense of war is the moral claim that it allows
the victors to define a stronger and more enduring basis for peace.
Just as September 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies,
so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure
and expand freedom.
Senate passage of the Freedom Consolidation Act sends an important
signal to our allies, present and future, about America's commitment to
sustaining the success our alliance has enjoyed for 50 years. It
provides the administration an enthusiastic vote of confidence in its
visionary campaign to enlarge and transform NATO to meet the new
threats. It reminds us all that freedom's power is multiplied, not
diminished, as more people share in it.
Former Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar wrote a wonderful book about
the Estonian resistance to Soviet occupation. He recalls the fervor
with which Estonian patriots resisted Soviet aggression, and their
dreadful realization that no outside power would intervene to save
their nation from Soviet tyranny. He writes:

Nobody believed that Estonia would, for decades and
decades, be left in the hands of the Soviets. That wasn't
even a possibility. It's only a question of time, everybody
thought. But after decades went by, the idea about the West
coming to their aid disappeared. The fight in the forest
became a personal thing. These people fought because they
simply wanted to die as free men.

Today, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Slovenians, Slovakians,
Bulgarians, and Romanians live as free men, and women, in testament to
the same values for which patriots before them lived, and died. The
values we in the U.S. Senate invoke today as we express our support for
the right of these nations to choose their destiny in the collective
defense of freedom.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, is an alliance of free, democratic nations, unique in
human history for its characteristics and its success. Today, the
alliance's principled strength not only protects the peace and freedom
of the transatlantic community, but contributes to building a world
that is ever more free, more democratic, and more prosperous.
For years, physical defense of member nations' home soil, as defined
under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, has been the core of our
alliance. Since the end of the cold war, NATO has constantly
reconsidered the landscape of threats to security and freedom and has
responded to that changing landscape by defining new missions and new
capability needs. In Bosnia and then Kosovo, NATO applied appropriate
force just outside its immediate borders for the common good of
stability in Europe. And it did so successfully with partner forces
from non-NATO European states.
Partner states are learning from NATO and striving to emulate the
alliance's standards of military professionalism, transparent civilian
control of military power and resources, and the legal and civil
foundations of popular legitimacy. Many of those partner states aspire
to full membership in the alliance. I believe that opening membership
to a large number of nations will make NATO an even more potent
protector of transatlantic and global security from threats including
terrorism, a better facilitator of regional conflict resolution, and a
more influential incubator of democracy.
Senator Warner reminds us, correctly, that the alliance is so
successful because it provides history's standard for rigorous and
professional military planning and execution. But NATO is also the
flagship institution in America's post-WWII success in widening the
circle of democracy, stability, and prosperity across the transatlantic
region. The achievement of ``Europe, whole, free and at peace'' will
likely be remembered as the greatest legacy of American foreign policy
in the 20th century, because it is the foundation for greater
opportunity in this century, as well as greater collective security.
I believe that any democratic European nation that meets NATO's
criteria and can be a net contributor to the security of the alliance
should be admitted. I support welcoming into NATO at the Prague summit
as many candidate nations as meet these criteria.
Let us focus for a moment on the alliance's adaptation to new
missions. The awful events of September 11th prompted NATO to invoke
Article V and respond to attacks on American soil by supporting a war
against an enemy half a world away from the United States. Technology
has collapsed geographical distinctions to the point that today, a plot
conceived anywhere in the world can pose just as serious a threat to
NATO members' security as an aggressive military movement across a
European border. Clearly, NATO accepts this new reality and must
embrace a more expansive geographical understanding of its mission.
This evolution in alliance thinking is realistic and healthy.
The aspirant states embrace this mission, too. Declaring their intent
to act as de facto allies of the United States, partner states have
offered enhanced information sharing, overflight rights, transit and
basing privileges, military and police forces, medical units and
transport support to U.S. efforts. Most of the aspirant states are
participating in some fashion in the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan, working well with our forces under Central
Command.
The North Atlantic Alliance has before it a summit meeting in Prague
this November, at which all the crucial issues--adapting methods of
operation, refining NATO's mission, committing to achieve the necessary
capabilities, and enlargement--require our engagement. I trust that the
administration is working with allies to achieve a consensus on
enlargement before the Prague Summit. And I take the administration at
its word that it will consult the Congress and especially the Senate
regularly about summit issues, as it has done in the February 28
hearing of the Armed Services Committee and at staff level in the
months before. In due course, the Senate will deliberate over the
individual accession agreements that the alliance may negotiate with
aspirant states. Our scrutiny of those candidates and their commitments
will provide them with added impetus to raise democratic and military
standards and be the best allies they can be.
The Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, which I cosponsored here in
the Senate, is our political signal that the Senate welcomes
consideration of new members and holds fast to the vision of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace, a vision which Presidents Bill Clinton and
George W. Bush have articulated. It also authorizes part of the
investment our Nation is making in states that share our vision. The
bill will do the following: reaffirm Congressional support for
continued NATO enlargement; designate Slovakia as eligible to

[[Page S4485]]

receive U.S. assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994; and,
endorse the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) levels for the Baltic
states, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria that the administration sought
for the current fiscal year.
In the Armed Services Committee on February 28 we had a thorough
airing of questions about the aspirant states. NATO Supreme Commander
General Ralston's testimony in particular illustrated that there is
practical work going on with all of them and that they expect further
scrutiny of their preparedness. The aspirants know they each have a
case to make. They are busy in the Congress and expert community
explaining their progress and asking what they need to do more or
better. In terms of money and military-to-military cooperation, we are
already doing what this bill conveys, both bilaterally and in NATO.
And so I urge my colleagues to join Senator Helms, the other
cosponsors and myself in sending this signal that America values the
NATO alliance, that we value the security arrangements and political
principles NATO so crucially advances, and that we value friendly
states that share our values and vision.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3167, the
Freedom Consolidation Act of 2002.
The title of this bill says it all, our goal here today, and our goal
when we enlarge NATO this November, is to consolidate the gains that
freedom has made in Europe since 1989.
Thirteen years ago, in a series of wonderful evolutions and
revolutions, the people of eastern Europe threw off the shackles of
communism and sent the Warsaw Pact to the dustbin of history.
Since then, the many nations of eastern and central Europe, some of
them brand new, have striven mightily to establish democratic
institutions and develop market-based economies. This is nothing short
of a Herculean task, given the magnitude of the problems that beset
communist systems as they were in their terminal phase.
The people carrying out this difficult and historic transformation
need and deserve all the support we can give them. One of the ways we
can provide that support is to encourage the further enlargement of
NATO. Membership in NATO will ease the strain on these newly free
countries and assist in their transformation to market democracies.
This is true for several reasons. First, membership in NATO, with its
bedrock security commitment contained in Article V, will promote a
stable environment in which these countries can pursue reforms. Second,
membership in NATO will foster an ever greater flow of information and
ideas between the U.S., western Europe and these new democracies.
Third, membership in NATO will require these nations to maintain
democratic systems and uphold the rule of law, thus giving them the
incentive to continually deepen their reform process.
These benefits of NATO enlargement, the consolidation of freedom, the
encouragement of the reform process in former communist countries, and
the expansion of the zone of stability and peace in Europe, are all
very much in the U.S. interest.
I think that recognition of these benefits is why there has been such
strong congressional support for NATO enlargement dating back to at
least 1994. By reaffirming past statements of support for enlargement
by Congress, by Presidents Bush and Clinton and by NATO itself, and by
authorizing assistance to seven aspirant countries, this bill continues
that tradition.
At Munich and Yalta, it was decided that, as Neville Chamberlain
termed them, ``small, far-away'' countries could be sacrificed. The
ghosts of those two tragic episodes have haunted Europe for over 60
years. A further round of NATO enlargement will help exorcize those
ghosts. Therefore, as NATO prepares for its Prague Summit in November,
I hope it will heed the words of President Bush, who stated last year
that ``as we plan to enlarge NATO, . . . we should not calculate how
little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the
cause of freedom.''
In other words, we should seek to offer NATO membership to as many
new members as possible. That being said, NATO must of course be
judicious in the selection process. NATO is not a club, it's an
alliance. And enlargement is not a free pass to security for new
members. NATO membership demands commitment from and places obligations
upon those new members.
One of those obligations is the maintenance of adequate defense
budgets. New members must be able to offer equipment, forces and
capabilities that actually make a net contribution to NATO. As has been
much discussed of late, NATO already suffers from the so-called
capabilities gap. That is, as we have learned from the campaigns in the
Balkans and Afghanistan, there is a large and growing gap between the
military capabilities of the United States and most of its NATO allies.
Although the United States has reduced defense spending over the past
decade or so, the cuts in Europe have been even more severe. This is
reflected in the fact that while we devote over 3 percent of our GDP to
defense, the European average is now below 2 percent. This simple fact
goes a long way toward explaining why NATO, despite its very helpful
and much appreciated invocation of Article V after September 11, has
not participated in the campaign in Afghanistan. NATO should not
exacerbate the capabilities gap by offering membership to countries
that are not serious about actually contributing to a military
alliance.
Still, NATO must seize this moment. This is a historic opportunity to
make Europe whole again after decades of war, division, and tyranny.
That is why I support this bill and hope it will pass overwhelmingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will close this debate, unless others
seek recognition, by reiterating my concern is for the American service
person--soldier, sailor, airman, and marine--who at some point in time,
because of the articles of this treaty, ``an attack on one is an attack
on all'', our service persons could be in the foxhole fighting,
repelling that attack with someone who is not trained, not equipped,
cannot communicate and all the other problems we have had in seeking a
uniformity of standards and military capabilities among the NATO
forces.
We are putting our people at risk. We are asking our taxpayers,
again, to spend enormous sums of money as we did in the Balkan
operations. I supported the Balkan operations. We did the right thing:
70 percent of the combat missions, 50 percent of the airlift.
This is not the lone dissenter, I suppose, in the Senate speaking.
This is the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, whom my
colleague from Indiana and I have met through many years, former
Minister of Defense from Great Britain, now Secretary General of NATO,
who said the following. And I will quote from Secretary General
Robertson's speech on NATO's future at the February 2000 Wehrkunde
Conference in Munich:

The United States must have partners who can contribute
their fair share to operations which benefit the entire Euro-
Atlantic community. . . . But the reality is . . . hardly any
European country can deploy usable and effective forces in
significant numbers outside their borders, and sustain them
for months or even years as we all need to do today. For all
Europe's rhetoric, an annual investment of over $140 billion
by NATO's European members--

That is the current 18, our Nation being the 19th. And I remind my
colleagues, our military budget is $379 billion, which I am privileged
to join with Chairman Levin to bring to the floor shortly. The total of
all other 18 is $140 billion.

For all Europe's rhetoric, an annual investment of over
$140 billion by NATO's European members, we still need U.S.
help to move, command, and provision a major operation.
American critics of Europe's military incapability are right.
So, if we are to ensure that the United States moves neither
towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European
countries must show a new willingness to develop effective
crisis management capabilities.

I am delighted we have had this debate tonight. I thank colleagues
for coming over at this very late hour and participating. It has given
me the opportunity to make my points, to elicit very important
commitments from colleagues in position of authority. I am not
discussing withdrawal from NATO, as may have been inferred by some. I
have not reached any conclusion about any one or several countries at
this

[[Page S4486]]

point in time as to whether they should or should not be admitted into
NATO. I do not believe this is an open-door policy.
I read article 10. It is quite specific in the treaty. It says again,
you must have the capability to contribute and bear your burden for the
security of the entire NATO.
I support efforts by our President with regard to Russia. Again, I
think we have covered that. To the extent that the additional nations
in NATO can help in this war on terrorism, you will have my support. We
have had a good debate. I will do everything I can, and now tonight I
am assured by others, to see this is done before the final document is
voted upon by the Senate.
I would like to add one thing to this debate. Our good colleague from
Delaware, the chairman, said he thought perhaps tonight the only people
following this debate would be the ambassadors of the aspirant
countries and perhaps ambassadors from other countries, but I have
found there is a remarkable infrastructure in the Nation's Capital, and
perhaps elsewhere. Many of them are volunteers, such as Mrs. Julie
Finley, who is a lifetime friend of mine and who has done a lot of hard
work and constructive effort on her own initiative to invite members of
the aspirant nations, be they the prime ministers or the defense
ministers or the foreign ministers, to events so that colleagues can
share and have the opportunity to meet them. So I think there is a
tremendous infrastructure. They may not be watching this debate
tonight, but I think they will make reference to the record that we
have put together.
So I thank my good friend from Indiana because I believe what we have
contributed tonight is a very important step towards strengthening
NATO.
Mr. LUGAR. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I
would join him in paying tribute to Julie Finley, whose hospitality I
have enjoyed. It has been an opportunity, as the Senator has suggested,
for an educational experience about NATO members and aspirants to NATO.

I join the Senator also in his comments about Lord Robertson, who
visited this country recently. He spoke to the Council on Foreign
Relations and was very candid, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed
out, about the obligations of European countries, the lack of lift
capacity, the lack of sophisticated communication gear, the lack of the
ability to bring in aircraft for specific strikes, the ordnance for
this equipment. These are recognized problems.
This debate, and other ways we can focus on NATO, are very important
in sharpening our own view of the alliance and of the possibilities of
this alliance in our mutual fight against terrorism. I thank the Chair.
I thank my distinguished colleague. On our side of the argument, I
yield back the time allotted to Senator Biden and to myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill is
considered read the third time.
The Senator from Nevada.

____________________