[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4514-S4518]
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
resume consideration of H.R. 3167. The clerk will state the bill by
title.
The 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor of S. 1572.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. As I understand the parliamentary situation, time is
controlled by Senator Biden and myself for half of the time remaining
until 10:30, and Senator Warner of Virginia controls the other half; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Would that be approximately 12 minutes each at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 11 minutes each.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, last evening in the debate, we had a good
discussion of the need for the Senate to affirm through this action
today that NATO should be expanded as a general principle. We also
established that there ought to be very careful criteria for that
expansion and examination of each of the candidates, as opposed to a
done deal at the end of the trail, in which the Senate then receives a
treaty without that careful examination country by country.
I have appreciated the colloquy with the Senator from Virginia,
Senator Biden, and myself in which I think we established both of those
facts--the desirability for a more robust NATO, and that would include
more members, likewise--members that in fact carry their weight. As the
Senator from Virginia pointed out, Americans may be involved in an
article 5 declaration to defend those countries that would come in. In
addition, we would anticipate that they would defend us.
Madam President, I point out that we are having this debate at this
point very largely because the President of the United States has asked
us to have it. Likewise, we have received correspondence from the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense pointing out how
imperative it is that we take this action to affirm that the United
States stands solidly in terms of expansion of NATO and the careful
consideration of its membership.
The act we discuss today also has money for seven candidates, on the
presumption that these are serious candidates, that this money will
make a difference in terms of training, interoperability of equipment,
the general proposition as partners for peace. These nations have
demonstrated great interest in the alliance and therefore deserve our
help.
We pointed out last evening, in fact, the money was appropriated last
December--the money is out there. This is the authorization of the
money. Some have asked, is the authorization following too far behind?
Our response is, no, if we take action.
This is why the President wants this action prior to his taking a
very important trip to the summit with President Putin in Russia next
week.
Madam President, I hope that today we will join in support of the
Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001 because this bill provides assistance
to the nations, as I mentioned. It gives us an opportunity for Congress
to affirm our solidarity with our allies and our confidence in the
future of the alliance.
I point out that our own President, George Bush, gave an important
speech last year in Warsaw in which he said:
All of Europe's new democracies from the Baltic to the
Black Sea and all that lie between should have the same
chance for security and freedom.
He went on to say he believed ``in NATO membership for all of
Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the
responsibility that NATO brings.''
The cold war may be over, but the security and welfare of America and
Europe are very closely linked, and our common goal must continue to be
the building of a Europe which is whole and free.
I mentioned in the debate last evening my own visits last September
to the three Baltic States--Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania--and Romania,
and Bulgaria to visit with leadership about the specific criteria. That
visit has been replicated by other Senators, most recently by our
Ambassador to NATO, Mr. Burns, who has laid out a very concrete plan
for each of those nations to affirm their interest and to give us a
basis to judge that interest.
I finally point out that NATO is a truly remarkable institution
because its members have joined together to assure that the ideals we
share--we have a collective, moral, and military strength--are enhanced
in the world at a time of the war on terrorism, at a time in which
literally the dispute as to whether out of area or out of business has
gone by the boards.
The war is out of area, by definition. The threats are all over the
world. The need for flexibility and for more of us to be involved is
apparent. As President Bush pointed out, that means filling in the
geography of Europe--Romania and Bulgaria and the southeast part--which
is so important as a link not only to Greece and Turkey, our allies,
but to the Middle East. The Baltic States were altogether
mischaracterized by the former Soviet Union. They were always
independent. We reaffirm that is the case. We see this as a cardinal
principle of this legislation.
Finally, I point out that NATO is the alliance that places us in
Europe. We are not a part of the European Union. We are a part of the
transatlantic military alliance with headquarters in Brussels, with an
American who has been in charge for many years. It is tremendously
important. We appreciate Europe, and NATO is the major way in which we
indicate that appreciation and participation.
The question now is, Should we expand that to countries that have
taken on democracy, have taken on defense responsibilities, have shown
through the Partnership for Peace their eagerness and their willingness
to be with us?
My answer is in the affirmative, and I hope the Senate will vote
overwhelmingly in favor of this action today that our President be
fortified as he proceeds into important diplomacy.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield to our distinguished colleague
from Texas 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from
Virginia.
It is very important for the United States and Europe to have the
kind of alliance that NATO has been. It has been the greatest defensive
alliance in the history of the world, but I feel as if I am
experiencing deja vu all over again.
The Senate is once again considering a measure to endorse the
expansion of NATO without having satisfactorily addressed any of the
same questions that loomed over the alliance 4 years ago when we made
the first recent expansion.
In April of 1998, this body voted to expand NATO without articulating
a rationale for NATO in the post-cold-war era, without calculating a
reliable estimate of the cost of the expansion, without establishing an
interalliance dispute resolution process, without evaluating the
militaries of the respective candidates to see what they offered and
where their problems were, and without determining how the alliance can
effectively coordinate military action amongst an even larger and more
unwieldy membership.
Here we are in 2002 with the same questions unanswered, and yet we
are on the cusp of enlarging again. I have never thought that any of my
concerns about the structure and purpose of NATO should be directed at
any one
[[Page S4515]]
country. I do intend to vote for this resolution because I think we
should expand the Partnership for Peace, we should get countries ready,
we should try to bring their militaries up to speed, and the President
wants this ability before he goes to Europe. I understand that, and I
support the concept of an alliance with Europe.
What is the alliance's purpose? This is a defensive alliance to
protect the democracies of Western Europe from the Communist threat of
the East. That threat has evaporated. Our President is going to make an
agreement with Russia in the next week that will have a mutual
disarmament pact that will bring down our stash of nuclear weapons and
their stash of nuclear weapons. We are friends with the Russians.
Today the threat for which NATO was first put in place is gone. We
should have a strategic military alliance, but we need to talk about
what functions it will have. If we are going to go offensive, as we did
in Kosovo, how are we going to do it? Everyone knows the problems we
had in trying to get unanimity when we were bombing Serbia. Everybody
knows that was an almost impossible task. Yet here we are talking about
adding new members without talking about what kinds of offensive
alliances we are going to have.
In fact, as we are looking now at the hotspots around the world, some
of the NATO allies agree with what we are doing in certain places; some
have been less helpful. We need to have a purpose for NATO, or are we
going to set our alliances according to the operations and interests of
different parties involved so that we should stretch our dollars in a
way that allows us the flexibility to determine which alliances we will
have for any particular operation?
The cost of NATO is a big one for the United States. One-half of our
permanent foreign forces are in Europe. We have a commitment to provide
25 percent of the NATO budget. We spend $170 million to $180 million in
military construction for NATO, and we have a $500 million commitment
for U.S. military construction in NATO countries. So we are talking
about almost $1 billion, about three-quarters of a billion dollars in
construction costs in European countries and/or NATO. That is a big
part of our budget when we also have major commitments in the Middle
East, major commitments in Korea in the DMZ, and major commitments, of
course, ongoing in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and places regarding
the war on terrorism.
We need to assess the costs before we go forward with this kind of
process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator for yielding me the time. I think
we are not ready to do this, but I certainly am not against expansion
of NATO.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the
Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001.
I support this bill because I support the enlargement of the NATO
alliance to admit qualified nations and that is, at its essence, what
this bill does. I would not support this bill if it supported
enlargement without conditioning enlargement on nations being willing
and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership.
I also would not support this bill if it sought to identify one or more
nations as being qualified for NATO membership. Since this bill does
neither of those things, I support the bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I am please to join my
distinguished colleague and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee to discuss the merits of the Freedom Consolidation Act.
Like Senator Warner, I have been deeply troubled by aspects of NATO
expansion and by what NATO expansion means in the post-cold-war era.
NATO's original mission was clearly understood--we were standing up to
the Soviet threat. Today, NATO's mission is very unclear, and the
organization itself has become a bloated bureaucracy where politics
often dictate military decisions.
NATO's involvement in the Balkans and the manner in which military
operations were conducted during the Kosovo air campaign are prime
examples of a NATO without a clear mission and with a broken
decisionmaking structure.
Let me make one thing clear--I believe every nation deserves the
right to self-determination. I am proud to state that I was an early
advocate of Baltic independence from the Soviet Union even when some in
the U.S. Government were opposed to the breakup of the Soviet Union. I
have great admiration for the Baltic people--the Latvians, the
Lithuanians, and the Estonians--they all suffered greatly and they
deserve to be free nations as do all nations. I can understand their
desire to join NATO and to integrate more fully into Western
institutions. However, I believe that before we even consider expanding
NATO, we must have a clear understanding of the mission of NATO.
For example, just the other day, NATO accepted Russia as a junior
partner of sorts. Russia will now participate as an equal partner in
many of the discussions and decisions of NATO. How do we reconcile the
expansion of NATO to countries that Russia is opposed to admitting to
NATO? We also have to consider Russia's own problems, such as the
conflict in Chechnya--could NATO and the United States be pulled into
the Chechnya conflict? We must also consider, frankly, whether NATO is
relevant in today's world.
Hopefully, we are finding that coalitions for the sake of coalitions
are not necessary. As European countries continue to downsize their
militaries, the burden on the United States becomes greater and
greater. Increasing its membership without significant reforms and a
better understanding of its mission, does not make sense.
NATO is becoming a mini-U.N., an unwieldy and overgrown organization
which will demand much of us, our commitment, our military, our
national wealth, but which will return little to us for our investment.
Although I understand a country's desire to join NATO, we must first
address the many problems in NATO before we even consider expanding its
membership. Therefore, I will vote against this legislation, not
because I do not support the security needs of the countries of the
Baltic and Eastern Europe, but because the mission of NATO and the
organization itself need serious work.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise today to voice support for Freedom
Consolidation Act of 2002 of which I am an original cosponsor.
Over 5 years ago, as Governor of Virginia I visited Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary. I supported the admission of these Central
European countries into NATO. And, wisely about 4 years ago the U.S.
Congress enacted legislation that would ensure that Poland, Hungary,
and the Czech Republic were not the last emerging or reborn democracies
to join the NATO. That was the right decision then and it is the right
decision now. We should bring such aspiring democracies into our fold.
And include them in the important decisions and responsibilities that
affect the world as a whole. The nations seeking admittance have worked
hard to meet the strict requirements. Many of these nations have
undergone monumental changes from the days of communist occupation that
have positively transformed them into freely elected, legitimate
governments. Expanding the alliance to include nations that have made
great changes in establishing human freedoms in their laws and
practices is consistent with the 1949 NATO Treaty preamble which reads:
[The Parties] are determined to safeguard the freedom,
common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on
the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule
of law . . .
It is in the best interest of the United States to nurture young
democracies around the world. Coach them on the great values and
principles stated in the NATO preamble. Working toward fulfilling the
requirements of NATO's Membership Action Plan, shows the commitment
aspirant nations have made to NATO's basic principles: collective
defense; common values; and the promotion of democracy.
NATO membership is a catalyst for Western values, principles and
actions. It is to the benefit of the United States and NATO to ensure
the security of nations that desire a place among the community of
democracies. The Freedom Consolidation Act of 2002 does not
[[Page S4516]]
predict which nations will be chosen, nor should it. Instead it sends a
clear message to nations aspiring to freedom. That message is: Your
efforts have been recognized and future progress will be rewarded with
admittance to the most effective treaty organization in history.
It is very difficult to consider any issue related to international
relations without viewing it in the context of the September 11th
terrorist attacks. We must remember the nations that arose to stand
with the United States mere hours after the horrifying attacks. When
the United States needed support, it did not have to make calls, NATO
was there--ready and poised to act along side of our nation. Passing
the Freedom Consolidation Act is but one step we can take to ensure
continued support through NATO. During this war on terrorism the United
States has recognized that we cannot live alone in this world,
especially in intercepting terrorist finances, gathering information,
as well assisting with personal, equipment, and military operation
support. Countries all over the globe have been instrumental in our
success and their assistance continues to expose the people that
planned and carried out those vile acts.
The varied contributions of NATO allies and aspirants include:
reconnaissance, refueling, Special Forces missions and many other
significant duties that have aided our troops. This cooperative effort
is a great example of the useful necessity of NATO. As we expand this
just war into new regions, we need to develop new relationships and
allies to ensure the safety of the world's democracies. I know there
are many of my colleagues questioning the value of bringing new members
into the alliance. There is sentiment that these nations are receiving
a great benefit while adding little. I would dispute that argument;
NATO is not a free ticket. All who aspire to join NATO work hard to
make the kind of military, economic, and democratic reforms necessary
to gain membership. This makes them a stable ally, and during these
chaotic times we need committed partners. Many of those being
considered for membership have proven their mettle. They have seen the
cost of war, the value of freedom, and have stood strong with America.
As we consider new members we must also revisit the responsibilities
of the existing nations. We must continue to urge our partners to
prepare and improve their military capabilities. My colleague and good
friend Senator John Warner said it best, ``NATO is first and foremost a
military alliance.'' NATO must address the growing imbalance between
the United States and our European partners. It is not in the best
interest of the alliance or European nations to have the United States
shoulder such a large part of the military burden. Senator Warner's
insight is important and should be a top priority for the young
democracies we hope to bring into the strongest alliance on Earth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, last December I watched carefully as the
Senate received from the House this legislation which we are about to
adopt. I urge Senators to vote for it. There will be one ``no'' vote,
in my judgment. That is the Senator from Virginia. I do so for the
following reasons: I believe this subject deserved debate, and that is
why I interposed an objection on the UC to have this passed last
December, 40-some millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to give to
these nations.
If we were able to separate this legislation between authorization
for these funds, I would vote for it because I think it is important we
expend these funds for these nations which are trying very hard, some
nine nations--although the money applied to only seven of the nine--
seven nations which are trying to put together, within their respective
countries, the fabric and the infrastructure necessary to hopefully
qualify for NATO.
I am in favor of some expansion. I am not against any country. I am
not for any country. The purpose of my objecting was I believed the
Senate should have a debate before we passed it. I thought I was
successful, but in the darkness of the Senate, as so often happens, the
appropriators appropriated the money. So it was a hollow act on my
part.
At long last we had a very good debate last night and I succeeded in
my objectives: Clarifying with the two distinguished colleagues on the
floor, the chairman and the ranking member, that this language, which I
deem as an invitation to join--if one looks at the overall rhetoric,
one sees it is very skillfully put together. It commits the Senate and
the Congress to nothing other than the authorization of funds, but I
think it could be misinterpreted and misleading to the aspirant
nations, and the people, the journalists, and all who will cover the
actions by the Senate and, indeed, the Congress now to approve that.
I say so for these reasons. The act is entitled the ``Gerald B.H.
Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001.''
Turning to the dictionary, I read the meaning of ``consolidation'':
To bring together into a single whole, unite and combine.
This is a bad choice of words, in my judgment. This sends a message
that all nine, or all seven, should join. I think we lose sight of the
purpose of NATO--it is a military organization--which is only if there
is a compelling military rationale for additional members, and each
member must be fully ready and prepared to take up their
responsibilities under article 5, which says an attack on one is an
attack on all.
So I will vote no, probably the only one, but I will continue to be a
watchdog or, as some of my colleagues said, a ``barnyard dog.'' I am
going to make certain this Senate carefully reviews those credentials,
and we will not have, I say with respect to my chairman and ranking
member, suddenly a beautifully embossed document from the President of
the United States as a consequence of meetings abroad, and here they
are.
Do you think this Senate is going to go into it with that document
for ratification and single out countries? We cannot do it that way. We
have to do our work beforehand. I repeat, we have to do careful work. I
will move in my committee, the Armed Services Committee. I hope my
colleagues will do likewise. To those of us who can travel to these
nations, I urge that we do so.
My motives and goals for opposing this legislation are very simple. I
am not against an orderly, well thought out process leading to some
measure of expansion; my fight is for preservation.
NATO is the most extraordinary military treaty in the history of
mankind. Let's not sow the seeds of its demise.
This legislation being voted on today can be divided into two parts:
one, authorize appropriations--which I support--for seven of the nine
aspirant nations; and two, a compilation of rhetoric, primarily quotes
extracted from speeches and documents, which form a matrix that can
easily mislead people into believing that the United States Congress,
by enactment of this legislation, is sending an invitation to one and
all aspirants to join NATO. They need only RSVP in the affirmative.
I think we all agree that we are months away from deciding on which
of the aspirant nations meet the criteria to be invited to join NATO.
Therefore we should not be on the verge of adopting legislation that
implies that aspirants ``from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that
lie between'' should be invited to join the Alliance.
I speak and vote against this legislation not as a sign that I oppose
NATO expansion, but rather as a warning that we simply do not have the
facts before us to render an informed judgement on the message this
legislation sends across the Atlantic.
In closing, I would urge my colleagues to review the statement my
good friend Mr. Lantos made on November 7, 2001 in the House of
Representatives. On page H7867 on that day's Congressional Record, Mr.
Lantos stated:
And I strongly endorse the statements of the 10 applicant
countries that eventual NATO membership for all of them will
be a success for the United States, for Europe and for NATO.
While I deeply respect my friend's good intentioned views, that
statement makes it clear to me that the proponents of this legislation
have already reached the conclusion that all applicants should be
invited to join NATO. I believe it is to early in the process to reach
that conclusion.
[[Page S4517]]
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. How much time is available to the Senator from Delaware?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. How much is in the control of the Senator from Virginia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, fourteen seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will let the Senator from Virginia
close.
I can assure my distinguished colleague from Virginia that Senator
Lugar, I, and others in the Foreign Relations Committee will have
thorough hearings on this, as we did before.
This bill merely reaffirms the open-door policy for NATO enlargement
which was first enunciated by the Clinton administration and now has
been continued by the Bush administration. It does not authorize new
funds that would throw the budget out of whack. It merely authorizes
monies that have already been appropriated by the Arms Export Control
Act.
Voting for this legislation does not indicate any Member's intention
to vote for or against any potential aspirant to NATO. Exactly which
countries will be invited by the alliance is a decision that will be
made more than 6 months from now at a NATO summit in Prague, and
thorough Senate debate on ratification of NATO enlargement will occur
sometime at the end of this year and the beginning of the next.
Everyone is going to have an opportunity to decide whether they are for
or against this.
I remind my colleagues that 4 years ago, the Senate spent 7 lengthy
days in floor debate on the ratification of admission to NATO of
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I managed that resolution, and
I am certain the Senate will scrutinize the aspirants invited to
Prague, just as we did in 1998. What the bill does mean is that the
Senate authorizes the foreign military financing assistance to help
those candidate countries meet the alliance's stringent membership
requirements.
This bill will help NATO extend the zone of stability eastward and
southward on the continent so that sometime within the next decade we
will be able to say for the first time, I think, in all of modern
history that we have a Europe whole and free.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Freedom Consolidation Act. I
yield the floor to my friend from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my two colleagues, the chairman and the ranking
member, for an excellent debate. Other Members have participated, but
let us not forget that this is a military alliance, and in the event
troops are called out, our men and women in the Armed Forces will
occupy the foxholes, the tanks, the revetments, and take the risks
alongside the others.
What concerns me about NATO is this--I quote not the Senator from
Virginia but Secretary General Lord Robertson of NATO:
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, 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 towards neither
unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must
show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management
capabilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WARNER. This quote clearly indicates we have to be a watchdog of
NATO as we begin to invite in more and more countries.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield 1 minute to Mr. Stevens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I merely want to say I endorse the
statements made by the Senator from Virginia.
I want to explain my rationale for not supporting H.R. 3167, the NATO
Expansion Act.
In 1998, I voted to support the last round of NATO enlargement which
culminated in the assession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
Over the past 2 years, at least two of these countries have not made
much progress in restructuring and modernizing their military forces
and infrastructure.
I am concerned that this bill provides an open invitation to the 10
candidate countries, irrespective of their readiness or qualifications.
We should strongly support countries into the alliance that are ready
for NATO membership and that can significantly contribute to the
European security mission.
We first need to determine what is the long-term mission of NATO,
then assess how countries can contribute to that mission, and evaluate
each candidate based on that overall criteria.
We need candidate states that can help support the alliance in
maintaining peace and stability throughout the region.
For example, the United States flew over 60 percent of the combat
missions in the Kosovo conflict. We need to look for capabilities that
enhance the alliance and its members, not detract from it nor add
substantial costs.
There is also a significant price tag for bringing nations into NATO
that are not ready for membership. The alliance, to which the United
States already contributes about 25 percent of the costs, will have to
provide financial assistance to help these countries modernize their
Armed Forces and infrastructure.
We do not know the overall cost to do this, but it is my hope that we
should carefully proceed with NATO expansion and weigh each nation's
readiness to become a full partner in NATO.
I urge the member nations of NATO to proceed cautiously and address
the issue of expansion with great care.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my
support for H.R. 3167, the Freedom Consolidation Act. Last week I
received a letter from Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld expressing their
support for this bill. President Bush has also requested that the
Senate consider this bill before he leaves on his trip to Russia next
Wednesday. I am pleased that we could accommodate his request, and I
wish the President every success on the visit.
This is a straightforward bill. It cites earlier legislation leading
up to the last round of NATO enlargement, quotes President Bush's pro-
enlargement June 15, 2001, Warsaw speech, 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, FMF, under the Arms Export Control Act for Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania.
Most importantly, this bill reaffirms the position of the United
States on NATO enlargement: that the door to NATO membership remains
open, and that those countries that are prepared to meet the
obligations of membership--as it relates to defense capabilities and
democratic and political readiness--are welcome to join.
NATO enlargement has enjoyed and continues to enjoy bipartisan
support in the United States Senate. It is an issue that unites
Democrats and Republicans. At a time when we and our allies are engaged
in a global war on terrorism, we recognize more than ever the need for
allies--and for new allies.
As we face a shared and multidimensional threat, we must recognize
that each new ally brings substantial political, economic and military
contributions to the effort in Afghanistan and around the world.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 underscore the need to
consolidate the peace on the European continent so that North America
and Europe, from, as the President has said, the Baltic Sea to the
Black Sea, can focus their energies on the new threats of the 21st
century.
This is an important message for the President to take on his trip.
But another part of the President's trip is also about closing a
chapter from the 20th century.
[[Page S4518]]
The President announced Monday morning that he and President Putin
will sign a new treaty to deal with the nuclear weapons left from the
cold war.
The treaty limits the United States and Russia to no more than 1,700-
2,200 deployed weapons by 2012.
Any time we can get an agreement to reduce the number of nuclear
weapons deployed in the world, that is a positive step, and I commend
the President for taking it.
But there are a still a series of questions about that treaty that
need to be answered. Does it require destruction of any existing
nuclear weapons? Does it include provisions to secure Russian
stockpiles? Does it spell out a transparent timetable for when each
side must reduce the number of deployed weapons to the agreed upon
level? Does it include any new verification provisions? And lastly,
does it address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons?
I hope the President will use this historic trip to address these
questions, which go to the heart of one of the principal security
threats the United States faces today--the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, and the potential for those weapons to fall into the
hands of terrorists.
So let's send the President off on this important trip with the
important message contained in H.R. 3167--that we want to continue to
remake and improve our relations with the whole of Europe, including
Russia.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3167, and ask unanimous consent
to print in the Record a copy of a letter, dated March 20, that Senator
Lott and I sent to the Romanian Prime Minister, and a letter to me from
President Bush, dated April 11, on the same.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2002.
His Excellency Adrian Nastase,
Prime Minister, 1, Victoriei Square,
District 1, Bucharest, ROMANIA.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister: We write to congratulate you on
convening this important meeting with the other Prime
Ministers of Europe's new democracies. It is an important
stepping stone to the NATO summit in Prague next November.
At a time when the United States and its allies are engaged
in a global war on terrorism, we are grateful for the support
that you and your colleagues have provided. Americans
remember who their true friends and allies are at times of
war. The threat we face is a shared one, and we appreciate
and value the substantial political, economic and military
contributions that the countries represented in Bucharest are
making to the coalition effort in Afghanistan and around the
world. You are demonstrating in practice that you want to be
allies of the United States. It is indeed a ``Spring of New
Allies.''
At the NATO Summit in Prague in November, Alliance heads-
of-state will be making an important decision about
continuing the process of NATO enlargement. We want to take
this opportunity to reiterate that NATO enlargement has
enjoyed and continues to enjoy bipartisan support in the
United States Senate. It is an issue that unites Democrats
and Republicans.
We therefore look forward to the Prague summit and the
opportunity to take the next step in building a Europe whole
and free in alliance with the United States. We urge you and
your colleagues to continue to work hard and devote the
necessary resources to making your countries the strongest
possible candidates. As President Bush put it in Warsaw last
June, our vision is to extend the zone of democracy and
security to as many qualified countries as possible from the
Baltic to the Black Sea, including, as our allies in Greece
and Turkey have argued, the important Southern dimension. The
terrorist attacks of September 11th have only underscored the
need to consolidate the peace on the continent so that North
America and Europe can focus their energies on the new
threats of the 21st century.
Mr. Prime Minister, once again, we commend you and your
colleagues for your contributions to a strong, dynamic and
more secure North Atlantic community. Working together we are
confident that we can attain our collective vision of a
Europe whole and free.
Tom Daschle.
Trent Lott.
____
The White House,
Washington, April 11, 2002.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: I have seen the letter you and Senator
Lott sent to Romanian Prime Minister Nastase for the
Bucharest Summit of the Vilnius-10 countries. Thank you for
your leadership on this issue.
I strongly agree that NATO enlargement has been, and should
remain, a bipartisan issue. We must work together on this. I
noted the importance you place on the southern European
candidate countries.
We have an historic opportunity to intensify reforms and
consolidate freedom in nations that were once behind the Iron
Curtain. We can do this while building a new NATO-Russia
relationship. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to
miss.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, of course, we agree with the Senator from
Virginia. That is the purpose of this debate, to draw the attention of
this Senate to a momentous decision that is to come. We must examine
both armed services and foreign relations, and we pledge to do so, and
the criteria of each of the countries. NATO is important. It must
succeed. Therefore, we ask support for this resolution our President
has asked us to give him.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad)
and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) would vote ``no.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchison) the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 6, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--6
Craig
Inhofe
Roberts
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Warner
NOT VOTING--9
Conrad
Domenici
Enzi
Gregg
Helms
Hutchinson
McCain
Miller
Murkowski
The bill (H.R. 3167) was passed.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________