[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.

                          ____________________