[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7112-H7117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY AND NATO ENHANCEMENT RESOLUTION OF 2002

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 468) affirming the importance of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), supporting continued United States 
participation in NATO, ensuring that the enlargement of NATO proceeds 
in a manner consistent with United States interests, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 468

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This resolution may be cited as the ``Transatlantic 
     Security and NATO Enhancement Resolution of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The House of Representatives makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) NATO, founded on the principles of democracy, 
     individual liberty, and the rule of law, has proved to be an 
     indispensable instrument for forging a trans-Atlantic 
     community of nations working together to safeguard the 
     freedom and common heritage of its peoples and promoting 
     stability in the North Atlantic area.
       (3) NATO is the only institution that promotes a uniquely 
     transatlantic perspective

[[Page H7113]]

     and approach to issues concerning the security of North 
     America and Europe and remains the only multilateral security 
     organization demonstrably capable of conducting effective 
     military operations and preserving security and stability of 
     the Euro-Atlantic region.
       (4) The security, freedom, and prosperity of the United 
     States remain linked to the security of the countries of 
     Europe.
       (5) NATO remains the most visible and significant 
     embodiment of United States engagement in Europe and 
     therefore membership in NATO remains a vital national 
     security interest of the United States.
       (6) NATO enhances the security of the United States by 
     providing an integrated military structure and a framework 
     for consultations on political and security concerns of 
     members which could impact the Alliance.
       (7) The security of NATO member countries is inseparably 
     linked to that of the whole of Europe, and the consolidation 
     and strengthening of democratic and free societies on the 
     entire continent is of direct and material importance to the 
     NATO Alliance and its partners.
       (8) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to a mutual defense has been a major contributing factor 
     in the democratic transformation of Central and Eastern 
     Europe.
       (9) Members of the Alliance can and should play a critical 
     role in addressing the security challenges of the post-Cold 
     War era and in creating the stable environment needed for 
     Central and Eastern Europe to successfully complete political 
     and economic transformation.
       (10) NATO should remain the core security organization of 
     the evolving Euro-Atlantic architecture in which all 
     countries enjoy the same freedom, cooperation, and security.
       (11) NATO's military force structure, defense planning, 
     command structures, and force goals must be sufficient for 
     the collective self-defense of its members, and should be 
     capable of projecting power when the security of a NATO 
     member is threatened, and provide a basis for ad hoc 
     coalitions of willing partners among NATO members to defend 
     common values and interests.
       (12) NATO must act to address new post-Cold War risks 
     emerging from outside the treaty area in the interests of 
     preserving peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, 
     including--
       (A) risks from rogue states and non-state actors possessing 
     nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and their means of 
     delivery;
       (B) transnational terrorism and disruption of the flow of 
     vital resources; and
       (C) conflicts outside the treaty area stemming from 
     unresolved historical disputes and the actions of 
     undemocratic governments and sub-state actors who reject the 
     peaceful settlement of disputes.
       (13) All NATO members should commit to improving their 
     respective defense capabilities so that NATO can project 
     power decisively and sustain operations over distance and 
     time.
       (14) The requirements to provide collective defense, to 
     project power, and to sustain operations dictate that 
     European NATO members possess military capabilities to 
     rapidly deploy forces over long distances, sustain operations 
     for extended periods of time, and operate jointly with the 
     United States in high-intensity conflicts.
       (15) NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative, which is 
     intended to improve the defense capabilities of the European 
     Allies, particularly the deployability, mobility, 
     sustainability, and interoperability of Alliance forces, must 
     continue to be pursued by all members of the Alliance in 
     order to develop balanced capabilities.
       (16) With a few exceptions, European members of NATO have 
     been deficient in maintaining required military capabilities 
     and providing defense spending at levels adequate to meet 
     these capability shortfalls. Failure of the European NATO 
     members to achieve the goals established through the Defense 
     Capabilities Initiative could weaken support for the 
     Alliance in the United States over the long term.
       (17) Members of the Alliance must also recognize that the 
     campaign against new and emerging threats to the security of 
     the Alliance requires other non-military capabilities and 
     efforts to be effective. Thus, the need to enhance 
     intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally 
     between Alliance members and partners and within the Alliance 
     collectively, the facilitation of enhanced coordination among 
     Alliance member's law enforcement agencies, and improved 
     police and judicial cooperation and information exchanges are 
     critical to the overall effort.
       (18) NATO has embarked upon an historic mission to share 
     its benefits and patterns of consultation and cooperation 
     with other nations in the Euro-Atlantic area through both 
     enlargement and active partnership.
       (19) NATO has enlarged its membership on four different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (20) The NATO summit meeting to be held in the fall of 2002 
     in Prague will provide an historic opportunity to chart a 
     course for NATO in the new millennium by reaffirming the 
     importance of NATO to the collective security of the Euro-
     Atlantic region, by addressing new threats, developing new 
     capabilities, and by extending invitations to additional 
     countries of Europe to become members of the Alliance.
       (21) The governments of NATO member countries have stated 
     that enlargement of the Alliance is a further step toward the 
     Alliance's basic goal of enhancing security and extending 
     stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic region.
       (22) The enlargement process of NATO helps to avert 
     conflict, because the very prospect of membership serves as 
     an incentive for aspiring members to resolve disputes with 
     their neighbors and to push ahead with reform and 
     democratization.
       (23) The Partnership for Peace, created in 1994 under 
     United States leadership, has fostered cooperation between 
     NATO and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and 
     offers a path to future membership in the Alliance.
       (24) At the Washington Summit of the NATO Alliance in April 
     1999, the NATO heads of state and government issued a 
     communique declaring ``[we] pledge that NATO will continue to 
     welcome new members in a position to further the principles 
     of the [North Atlantic] Treaty and contribute to peace and 
     security in the Euro-Atlantic area''.
       (25) In 1999 NATO launched a Membership Action Plan 
     designed to help interested Partnership for Peace countries 
     prepare for membership by offering advice and assistance on 
     programs and membership-related issues.
       (26) The Membership Action Plan establishes certain 
     political, economic, social, and military-related goals that 
     aspiring candidate nations are expected to meet, including 
     the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, respect for 
     democratic procedures and the rule of law, human rights, 
     democratic control of the military and other military 
     reforms, and a commitment to stability and well-being through 
     economic liberty and social justice.
       (27) In May 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, nine nations of 
     Europe issued a statement (later joined by a tenth) declaring 
     that their countries will cooperate in jointly seeking NATO 
     membership in the next round of NATO enlargement and since 
     then have taken concrete steps to demonstrate this 
     commitment, including their participation in Partnership for 
     Peace activities and their commitment to the concept of the 
     Membership Action Plan.
       (28) On June 15, 2001, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland, 
     President George W. Bush stated ``[all] of Europe's new 
     democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that 
     lie between, should have the same chance for security and 
     freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of 
     Europe''.
       (29) The enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include as 
     full and equal members additional democracies in Europe will 
     serve to reinforce stability and security in Europe by 
     fostering their integration into the structures which have 
     created and sustained peace in Europe since 1945.
       (30) As new members of NATO assume the responsibilities of 
     Alliance membership, the costs of maintaining stability in 
     Europe will be shared more widely. The concurrent assumption 
     of greater responsibility and development of greater 
     capabilities by new members of NATO will further reinforce 
     burdensharing.
       (31) The membership of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and 
     Poland has strengthened NATO's ability to perform the full 
     range of NATO missions by providing bases, airfields, and 
     transit rights for NATO forces during Operation Allied Force 
     in the Balkans, by their contributions of military forces to 
     NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and by their support for 
     Operation Enduring Freedom.
       (32) The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, due to their 
     similar recent history, have bolstered NATO's capability to 
     integrate former communist nations into a community of 
     democracies and have served as mentors to other countries 
     that aspire to join NATO.
       (33) In supporting NATO enlargement all candidate countries 
     must be fully aware of the costs and responsibilities of NATO 
     membership, including the obligation set forth in Article X 
     of the North Atlantic Treaty that new members be able to 
     contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area, and 
     further to ensure that all countries admitted to NATO are 
     capable of assuming those costs and responsibilities.
       (34) For those candidate countries that receive an 
     invitation to join NATO at the Prague Summit, the process of 
     joining NATO does not end with the invitation but rather with 
     meeting the full responsibilities of a NATO member, including 
     the completion of issues identified by the Membership Action 
     Plan, which will continue beyond Prague.
       (35) In considering the enlargement of NATO at Prague and 
     in issuing invitations to the candidate countries who have 
     made significant progress toward achieving their objectives 
     in the Membership Action Plan established by NATO, there is a 
     recognition that each country invited to join NATO should 
     accede on a common date but before the date on which the next 
     announced NATO summit is to take place.
       (36) The countries that will be invited to begin accession 
     negotiations with NATO at the NATO summit in Prague should 
     not be the last such countries invited to join NATO and there 
     should be a continuing process and progress toward the 
     admission of additional democracies in Europe beyond 2002 
     depending on the degree to which those countries meet the 
     criteria set forth in NATO's Membership Action Plan.

[[Page H7114]]

       (37) The process of NATO enlargement entails the consensus 
     agreement of the governments of all 19 NATO member countries 
     and ratification in accordance with their constitutional 
     procedures.

     SEC. 3. COOPERATION BETWEEN NATO AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       The House of Representatives makes the following findings:
       (1) The admission into the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) of new members from countries in Eastern 
     and Central Europe, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and 
     Poland, will not threaten any other country.
       (2) Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has attached 
     particular importance to the development of constructive and 
     cooperative relations with the Russian Federation in order to 
     overcome remaining vestiges of confrontation and competition 
     in order to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation between 
     NATO and the Russian Federation.
       (3) In 1994, building on previous efforts at cooperation, 
     Russia joined the Partnership for Peace Program, further 
     enhancing the emerging NATO-Russian Federation dialogue.
       (4) On May 27, 1997, in an expression of strong commitment 
     to work together to build a lasting and inclusive peace in 
     the Euro-Atlantic area, the heads of state and government of 
     NATO and the Russian Federation signed the ground-breaking 
     ``Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security 
     Between NATO and the Russian Federation''.
       (5) On March 18, 1998, the Russian Federation formally 
     established its mission to NATO and appointed a senior 
     military representative to facilitate military and defense-
     related cooperation between NATO and the Russian Federation.
       (6) Since 1998, NATO and the Russian Federation have worked 
     cooperatively with each other in the Balkans and elsewhere 
     setting the stage for the ability of an enlarged NATO to 
     continue the cooperative spirit embodied in the Founding Act.
       (7) On May 28, 2002, in an historic step toward the 
     Alliance's long-standing goal of building a secure, 
     cooperative, and democratic Euro-Atlantic area, NATO took the 
     decisive and substantial step of deepening the NATO-Russian 
     Federation relationship by establishing the new NATO-Russia 
     Council.

     SEC. 4. UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD NATO.

       The House of Representatives declares the following to be 
     the policy of the United States:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should 
     remain the primary institution through which European and 
     North American allies address security issues of 
     transatlantic concern.
       (2) The member states of NATO should reaffirm, at the 
     Prague Summit in the fall of 2002, the continued importance 
     of NATO, renew their commitment to strengthen the 
     transatlantic partnership, reinforce unity within NATO, 
     maintain a vigorous capability to carry out collective 
     defense, and harmonize security policies and strategies for 
     transatlantic affairs.
       (3) At the Prague Summit, the Alliance, while maintaining 
     collective defense as its core function, should as a 
     fundamental Alliance task, continue to strengthen national 
     and collective capacities to respond to new threats wherever 
     such threats occur, including from abroad.
       (4) The Alliance, in addition to the strategic concept 
     adopted by the Allies at the summit meeting held in 
     Washington in 1999, must recognize the need to develop new 
     capabilities, and agree to consider acting upon the threats 
     posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
     terrorism by intensifying consultations among political and 
     military leaders, and by developing comprehensive 
     capabilities to counter these threats to the international 
     community.
       (5) The Alliance should make clear commitments to remedy 
     shortfalls in areas such as logistics, strategic airlift, 
     command and control, modern strike capabilities, adequate 
     shared intelligence, and the other requirements identified by 
     NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative necessary to provide 
     the ability to carry out the full range of NATO's missions.
       (6) The Alliance must ensure a more equitable sharing of 
     contributions to the NATO common budgets and to overall 
     national defense expenditures and capability-building.
       (7) The President, the Secretary of State, and the 
     Secretary of Defense should fully use their offices to 
     encourage the NATO allies to commit the resources necessary 
     to upgrade their capabilities to rapidly deploy forces over 
     long distances, sustain operations for extended periods of 
     time, and operate jointly with the United States in high 
     intensity conflicts, thus making such NATO allies more 
     effective partners.
       (8) The member states of NATO should commit to enhanced 
     intelligence-sharing, law enforcement, police, and judicial 
     cooperation, and expanded information exchanges within and 
     among Alliance members in order to meet the challenges of new 
     and emerging threats.

     SEC. 5. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) while maintaining its essential and inherent right to 
     make its own decisions, the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) should seek to strengthen its relations 
     with the Russian Federation as an essential partner in 
     building long-term peace in Europe, and to that end, the new 
     NATO-Russia Council, in which member states and the Russian 
     Federation will work as equal partners on mutually-agreed 
     matters, should be welcomed and supported;
       (2) while retaining its primary commitment to collective 
     defense, NATO enlargement should be carried out in such a 
     manner as to underscore to the Russian Federation that NATO 
     enlargement will enhance the security of all countries in 
     Europe, including the Russian Federation; and
       (3) in seeking to demonstrate NATO's defensive and 
     security-enhancing intentions to the Russian Federation, it 
     is essential that neither fundamental United States security 
     interests in Europe nor the effectiveness and flexibility of 
     NATO as a defensive alliance be jeopardized.

     SEC. 6. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO NATO ENLARGEMENT AND 
                   DESIGNATION OF COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR NATO.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) at the Summit to be held in Prague in the fall of 2002, 
     the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should extend 
     invitations for accession negotiations to any appropriate 
     candidate country that meets the objectives and targets for 
     NATO membership as outlined in the Membership Action Plan 
     process established by NATO in 1999, including--
       (A) a commitment to the basic principles and values set out 
     in the Washington Treaty;
       (B) the capability to contribute to collective defense and 
     the Alliance's full range of missions; and
       (C) a firm commitment to contribute to stability and 
     security, especially in regions of crisis and conflict, and 
     to be willing and able to assume the responsibilities of NATO 
     membership;
       (2) the candidate countries of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
     Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
     Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia should be 
     commended on the significant progress such countries have 
     made thus far in political and economic liberty and military 
     reform necessary for meeting the objectives for prospective 
     members of NATO as set out in their own Membership Action 
     Plans;
       (3) each candidate country, despite recognized Membership 
     Action Plan deficiencies requiring further refinement, could 
     in its own way contribute to stability, freedom, and peace in 
     Europe as a whole, as many of such countries have done thus 
     far in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, and would make a 
     positive contribution toward furthering the goals of NATO 
     should it become a NATO member country;
       (4) having made significant progress in reforming their 
     societies and their military forces, and having developed 
     reasonable, affordable, and sustainable plans to be able to 
     work within the Alliance structure and to contribute 
     positively to the collective defense of the Alliance and 
     other NATO missions, the candidate countries of Bulgaria, 
     Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia 
     have met in a satisfactory manner, the criteria established 
     by NATO in the Membership Action Plan process, would likely 
     make a positive contribution to NATO, and should be invited 
     to begin the accession process to join the Alliance at the 
     Prague summit;
       (5) with respect to candidate countries invited to join 
     NATO, such countries should accede on a common date before 
     the next announced NATO summit is to take place;
       (6) after the Prague summit those candidate countries 
     invited to join the Alliance should continue to participate 
     in the Membership Action Plan until accession, and the 
     accession process should take into account work conducted 
     under the Membership Action Plan; and
       (7) the process of NATO enlargement should continue beyond 
     the inclusion of such candidate countries invited to join 
     NATO at Prague, to include those candidate countries not so 
     invited at Prague as well as other democratic European 
     countries which may express interest in joining the Alliance, 
     and which agree to utilize the Membership Action Plan to 
     facilitate such NATO enlargement.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Watson) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on November 21 and 22, the heads of state and government 
of the 19 members of the NATO alliance will gather in Prague in what 
will arguably be the most important meeting of the alliance in a 
decade.

[[Page H7115]]

  At Prague, the future of the alliance will thoroughly be debated. 
That debate will include the critical issue of whether the alliance can 
agree on what threats the alliance is likely to face in the future and 
whether the alliance members will make a serious and credible 
commitment to the development of the military capabilities necessary to 
meet those threats.
  In addition, the summit will affirm the new relationship with Russia 
and will make history by likely issuing invitations to the largest 
number of new members ever in the history of the alliance.
  Last November, when the House voted on the Solomon Freedom 
Consolidation Act, we were entering the beginning of a debate within 
the Congress, the Bush administration, the media, and among our NATO 
partners over the future of the alliance and what kind of alliance we 
would be inviting new members to join.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on 
International Relations, I felt it would take some time to address 
several of the questions being asked regarding the alliance. Some of 
those questions included: Was NATO still relevant to Euro-Atlantic 
security? Were the alliance's roles and missions in need of new 
definition? What was the ability of the alliance to carry out those 
missions? What was the rationale for adding new members, and what could 
those new members provide the alliance? Finally, what would the impact 
of an enlarged NATO on a West-leaning but still somewhat skeptical 
Russia be?
  To attempt to find those answers, I laid out a comprehensive plan to 
gather the necessary information to make an informed judgment to 
present to the House. The subcommittee held several hearings on the 
future of NATO and enlargement. I met with numerous foreign visitors, 
both alliance members and candidates alike. I traveled to three of the 
candidate states to review the commitments they are making to becoming 
responsible members of the alliance.
  Subcommittee staff attended countless meetings, analyzed much of the 
information available on the alliance and the candidate countries, and 
twice traveled to NATO headquarters in Brussels. All this was designed 
to ensure that the subcommittee, and subsequently the whole House, 
would feel comfortable supporting the NATO alliance and endorsing new 
countries wishing to join the alliance.
  H. Res. 468 is the work product of the Subcommittee on Europe's 
efforts to address the importance of the events which will take place 
in Prague. H. Res. 468 reaffirms the need for our commitment to the 
NATO alliance. This is also the view held by President Bush and 
Secretary Powell.
  H. Res. 468 addresses the urgent need for upgrading NATO's military 
capabilities in order to meet today's changing threat environment. It 
agrees with the need for a strong NATO-Russia cooperative partnership. 
Finally, it affirms that the further enlargement of the alliance will 
further the stability of Europe, add to the security of the alliance, 
and is appropriate and welcomed.
  During consideration of H. Res. 468 in the subcommittee, I offered an 
amendment regarding enlargement which was unanimously adopted. That 
amendment endorsed the candidates of seven countries, including 
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. 
This endorsement was determined after reviewing an extensive report 
prepared by our staff. The report addressed the progress the candidates 
had made in accordance with NATO's member action plan or MAP. The 
analysis focused on political, economic, and social development with 
each candidate. It looked at their ability to develop a military 
structure capable of providing for the overall security of the 
alliance, and it reviewed the commitment to provide the resources 
necessary to ensure that the reforms continued and that required 
military capability would be achieved.
  The analysis was by no means exhaustive, but it was intended to 
provide the Members an overview of what issues are important to NATO in 
making an informed assessment of each candidate. Overall, all 10 
candidates should be congratulated for the efforts they have made thus 
far to meet the criteria for becoming a member of NATO.
  Progress in the candidate countries, ranging from political and 
military reform, resources commitment, to ensuring the support of the 
population, has been very impressive. Each has displayed a level of 
enthusiasm and commitment to the alliance as we saw demonstrated when 
the ambassadors of all 10 of the candidate countries testified before 
our subcommittee. Each has already displayed their willingness to be a 
fully participating member of the alliance through their actions and 
contributions in the Balkans and with respect to the campaign against 
terrorism. Each candidate brings with it its own individual strengths. 
Each is a viable democracy which shares a pro Euro-Atlantic view. Each 
is committed to market economies, all have embraced military reform, 
and each provides a unique geopolitical perspective or geostrategic 
location. These attributes make them all desirable members, either now 
or in the near future.
  On the other hand, each candidate has its weaknesses. Not all have 
mature political systems or strong institutions. Some have weak 
economies with structural deficiencies needing attention. Not all have 
sufficiently addressed corruption. Some need further reform of their 
militaries and more modern equipment. Of course, all need to spend more 
money.
  Nevertheless, it is our judgment that each of the seven countries 
listed in the amendment thus far meet the MAP criteria in a 
satisfactory way.

                              {time}  1715

  And each has been judged to be a potential net contributor to the 
alliance security. Does this mean they have nothing left to do? Far 
from it, Mr. Speaker. Each has plenty more to be done, and that work 
must continue until Prague and beyond Prague, whether they receive an 
invitation to join or they do not.
  To conclude, Mr. Speaker, given the continued importance of NATO to 
the United States and the importance of the upcoming Prague summit, I 
believe the House of Representatives should play an active role in 
expressing our views on NATO and its future. I believe we should also 
provide our input on which countries should be admitted to the alliance 
as guidance for the administration, which will play a key role in 
determining who ultimately will be invited; and we offer our advice to 
our colleagues in the other body who, as stipulated in the 
Constitution, will be called on to ratify those selections.
  I believe H. Res. 468 provides a mechanism for such expression of the 
will of the House, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this resolution. I would 
first like to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Gallegly) for 
introducing this important resolution and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) for allowing it to move quickly to the House floor.
  The resolution before the House today endorses the expansion of NATO 
and specifically supports the NATO candidacy of Bulgaria, Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. The resolution also 
reaffirms that NATO is the primary institution through which Europe and 
North American allies address security issues and calls on NATO to 
strengthen national and collective capacities to respond to new 
threats.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has consistently led the way in 
supporting NATO enlargement and a strong and robust role for NATO in 
Europe. NATO is the longest surviving alliance of our time, and it has 
endured because it is an alliance of free democratic nations.
  There can be no better endorsement of NATO's success and continuing 
importance than the desire of the newly emerging Central and East 
European democracies to join this alliance. Whether all seven of these 
aspiring NATO members are invited to join the alliance at the Prague 
summit next month or not, there must be opportunities in the future for 
all European states who accept the conditions of membership to join 
NATO.
  Mr. Speaker, the post-September 11 era has brought us new realities, 
and one of them is the crucial role that NATO can play in the fight 
against terrorism. The countries which have applied to NATO have 
already joined the

[[Page H7116]]

United States by participating directly in the war on terrorism and by 
other means such as sharing intelligence and cutting off terrorist 
financing. While the record of accomplishments and contributions by the 
aspirant countries, working with their membership action plans, is 
impressive, none can afford to become complacent now. The process of 
reforming the NATO aspirant nations will not and cannot end with 
Prague.
  The process of reform must continue after membership, including 
dealing with the problem of corruption, the treatment of minorities, 
relations between the governments and opposition, and Holocaust-era 
issues.
  I would also like to emphasize the need for continued strong 
cooperation with the Russian Federation under the new NATO-Russia 
Council. I welcome President Putin's new attitude towards NATO 
enlargement. This represents an important change in the Russian 
perceptions of the NATO alliance and is a sentiment that we should 
continue to strongly encourage. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging adoption of 
House Resolution 468, which expresses the support of the House for the 
enlargement of NATO that is planned for the Prague Summit later this 
fall. Millions of Americans of Central and East European descent share 
that view, as they demonstrated since the NATO expansion of 1999, when 
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were invited to become members 
of the North Atlantic Alliance. They--and most other Americans--
recognize that a vital U.S. foreign policy interest will be served by 
continuing to expand the zone of democracy and stability in Europe.
  I have been and remain a strong proponent of NATO enlargement to 
include those countries that have demonstrated their commitment to 
democratic reforms, including full protection of minority rights of the 
diverse ethnic communities that live in these countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a particular interest and concern 
regarding minority rights of two large historic Hungarian communities--
the 1.5 million Hungarians in Romania and the 520,000 in Slovakia. The 
major unresolved issue affecting the minority communities of both 
countries is the continued postponement of the implementation of laws 
for restitution and/or compensation for communal property confiscated 
from Hungarian religious and educational institutions. Although both 
Romania and Slovakia have taken important steps to address this 
critical question of property restitution, progress has been both slow 
and disappointingly limited.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge both countries to pursue restitution more 
vigorously in the coming months, until fair and complete restitution is 
implemented according to the rule of law. Only by the safeguarding of 
religious and minority rights and freedoms will the NATO zone of 
stability be extended to nations that share a demonstrated commitment 
to democracy and a true community of values. I urge the governments of 
Romania and Slovakia to work to resolve these important issues, and I 
urge all of the countries who seek admission to the North Atlantic 
Alliance to remember that we in the United States consider treatment of 
ethnic minorities as an important measure of a democratic society.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to express his very 
strong support for H. Res. 468, the Transatlantic Security and NATO 
Enhancement Resolution, which is an important and historic resolution 
before the House today. Additionally, this Member would like to express 
his appreciation to the Chairman of the International Relations 
Subcommittee on Europe, the distinguished gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gallegly) for his efforts as we worked together to draft this 
resolution, consider this resolution in the Europe Subcommittee, and 
bring this resolution to the Floor. Furthermore, this Member would like 
to thank the Chairman of the International Relations Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and the Ranking 
Member of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for agreeing to waive the full 
Committee's jurisdiction over H. Res. 468 so that the House can debate 
and vote on this measure before Congress adjourns.
  Indeed, as an original co-sponsor of this resolution and as a strong 
supporter of NATO and NATO enlargement, this Member is pleased that H. 
Res. 468 enjoys bipartisan co-sponsorship, including support from the 
House Leadership and from the full International Relations Committee.
  The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, 
with dramatic changes in Russia, have necessitated the evolution of 
NATO as an organization--a process of change that is accelerating. 
Among three of the most notable changes are--Alliance enlargement, a 
new focus on terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, and the creation of the NATO-Russia Council.
  The first post-Cold War legislation endorsing NATO enlargement was 
the NATO Participation Act of 1994, which the House of Representatives 
approved on October 7, 1994. The Senate, which has responsibility for 
ratifying the necessary changes to the NATO Treaty, shortly followed 
suit. At the NATO Madrid Summit of 1997, the Alliance began the process 
of expanding its membership from the lineup of eager former Warsaw Pact 
nations. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became full members in 
March of 1999. Overall this expansion has been very positive for NATO 
and for these three countries.
  The Alliance is headed for a second enlargement round, with accession 
decisions expected at the Prague Summit in November. There are formally 
ten aspirant countries: all of the remaining Warsaw Pact satellite 
partners of the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia and Croatia. (Because it did not begin the formal 
accession process until May 2002, Croatia will not be eligible to 
receive an invitation to join NATO this year.) America's European and 
Canadian allies acknowledge that in the upcoming Summit the U.S. 
assessments of the readiness of the aspirant countries will be crucial. 
The consensus emerging in the Alliance is that seven new members will 
be invited to formally begin the accession process in Prague.
  On November 7, 2001, the House passed the Gerald B.J. Solomon Freedom 
Consolidation Act, which this Member introduced and was named for our 
esteemed, departed colleague, a committed and active supporter of NATO. 
The Act, which had strong bipartisan support from House leadership, 
expressed congressional support for a robust second expansion round at 
Prague. It also authorized U.S. foreign military financing for seven 
aspirant countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, 
Slovakia, and Slovenia. After an appeal from President Bush, the other 
body's limited but influential opposition to a second expansion round 
relented, and the other body approved the House bill by a vote of 85-6 
on May 17, 2002.

  On June 27, 2002, Chairman Gallegly and this Member introduced H. 
Res. 468, with the initial original co-sponsorship of the Ranking 
Member of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the Chairman of the House 
Republican Policy Committee, the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox). As introduced, the resolution was intentionally 
silent on which countries the House would recommend for accession 
invitations at the Prague Summit. Like leaders in our Executive Branch, 
the Subcommittee wanted to keep the pressure on the leading aspirant 
countries to address remaining deficiencies in their individual 
Membership Action Plans (MAPs) and in meeting the commitments that are 
important for NATO membership.
  On September 25, 2002, during the Subcommittee mark-up, and with this 
Member's full support and consultation, the Chairman of the Europe 
Subcommittee offered an amendment which expresses the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the seven most qualified countries be 
offered invitations to join NATO. The Subcommittee approved the 
amendment by voice vote and favorably reported the resolution, as 
amended. The resolution's passage will signal to the world U.S. House 
support and membership recommendations for the enlargement decisions at 
the Prague Summit. It also will demonstrate to the American electorate 
House support for members of the other body as they assume their treaty 
ratification responsibilities to implement the Prague enlargement 
decisions during the next Congress.
  Why the interest in enlarging NATO membership? Why does NATO remain 
relevant and even crucial? What are the benefits of and concerns about 
enlargement? Why should Congress, the American people, and the NATO 
member nations support a robust NATO expansion round countries at the 
Prague Summit?
  Despite the demise of the Soviet Union and positive changes in 
Russia, a resilient and vital NATO is needed (1) to perform its core 
function as a mutual defense pact against the possibility of direct 
aggression against NATO or a member state, (2) to provide a forum to 
facilitate a greater degree of consultation, cohesion and cooperation 
among NATO members, and (3) to serve as a source of integrated military 
strength to address conventional or unconventional threats or demands 
for out-of-area peacekeeping activities vital to NATO's interests.
  NATO is the only multilateral security organization in place, 
potentially to be augmented by non-NATO participants in NATO's 
Partnership for Peace (PfP), which is capable of conducting effective 
military operations and preserving the security and stability of the 
Euro-Atlantic region.

[[Page H7117]]

  An expanded NATO provides the stable environment needed by its new 
member nations and aspirant countries in Central and Eastern Europe to 
successfully complete the political and economic transformation for 
integration into Europe and the community of Western democracies. 
Already, NATO membership requirements have been absolutely crucial in 
moving aspirant nations to civilian control of their militaries, 
transparency in military budgeting, interoperability of their military 
forces with NATO, resolution of internal ethics conflicts and 
territorial disputes, greater respect for human rights, reduced 
governmental and business corruption, judicial reform, market-oriented 
economies, and functioning parliamentary democracies.
  The Alliance's military force structure, with its enhanced levels of 
interoperability, joint defense planning, command/control/
communication/intelligence systems, and common force goals and 
doctrine, provides the crucial basis for forming ad hoc coalitions of 
willing NATO countries to take on combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian 
relief missions--supplemented by PfP participants, as in Bosnia and in 
Kosovo.

  NATO membership motivates member states generally to sustain their 
commitment to collective defense and, in particular, to meet the goals 
of NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI). Thus, our allies 
improve their militarily capabilities and are less dependent on 
American forces.
  The Alliance has accepted a new role in the war against terrorism and 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery 
systems among rogue states and non-state actors. Success will require 
more than the capability for a rapid and effective military response. 
It also will require: an enhanced level of intelligence-sharing; 
coordination among NATO members' law enforcement agencies; improved 
police, judicial and financial agency cooperation; and information 
exchanges.
  Russian civilian leadership is gradually recognizing that NATO is not 
a threat but rather a forum where Russia can most effectively 
communicate with her western neighbors. Additionally, Russian civilian 
leadership in the NATO-Russia Council and the confidence-building and 
cooperative steps that follow from the new council can lead to the 
economic prosperity and security of the community of Euro-Atlantic 
democracies.
  At a time when overt threats from Russia to its neighbors immediately 
to the west have declined or disappear, and when intense opposition to 
NATO expansion by the civilian Russian leadership has noticeably 
declined, there should be less reticence among NATO members to accept 
Baltic nation members and to willingly bear the mutual defense costs 
and concerns related to these prospective NATO members.
  With the careful redirection of some of NATO's focus away from 
meeting a massive Soviet/Russia strike against NATO Europe, and toward 
new tasks of peacekeeping, responding rapidly to out-of-area military 
or terrorist actions, and fighting the war on terrorism in NATO 
countries, the aspirant countries, with fewer resources and generally, 
smaller populations than most NATO members, can bring specialized 
military capabilities to the table for use in these new NATO missions.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must recognize that NATO is adapting to meet 
the threats to its member nations and to its collective interest. With 
the implementation of the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) concept for 
the assemblage of effective coalitions of the willing, NATO now has far 
more flexibility to address a range of new and very different threats. 
When the United States must defend its interests out of area, it is 
more likely to have some friends from NATO at its side who can 
effectively operate with it, despite a very troubling U.S.-Europe 
military capabilities gap.
  Finally, and in conclusion, bringing in new qualified nations to NATO 
is not, on balance, a burden. Aspirant countries' vigorous interest in 
membership and their commitments to democracy, peace and stability will 
make NATO a more vital organization in an eastern European 
neighborhood. These countries have been striving to meet NATO 
membership qualifications and to finally join the ranks of the 
prosperous, peaceful, democratic nations of the Euro-Atlantic region. 
How, morally, can we deny them this tremendous step toward these worthy 
goals--some 57 years after the end of World War II?
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this 
resolution.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 468, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________