[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27862-27868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           SENSE OF HOUSE THAT U.S. REMAINS COMMITTED TO NATO

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 59) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the United States remains committed to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res. 59

       Whereas for 50 years the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (hereafter in this preamble referred to as ``NATO'') has 
     served as the preeminent organization to defend the 
     territories of its member states against all external 
     threats;
       Whereas NATO, founded on the principles of democracy, 
     individual liberty, and the rule of law, has proved 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;
       Whereas NATO has acted to address new risks emerging from 
     outside the treaty area in the interests of preserving peace 
     and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, and maintains a 
     unique collective capability to address these new challenges 
     which may affect Allied interests and values;
       Whereas such challenges to NATO Allied interests and values 
     include the potential for the re-emergence of a hegemonic 
     power confronting Europe; rogue states and non-state actors 
     possessing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and their 
     means of delivery; transnational terrorism and disruption of 
     the flow of vital resources; and 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;
       Whereas the security of NATO member states is inseparably 
     linked to that of the whole of Europe, and the consolidation 
     and strengthening of democratic and free societies on the 
     entire continent, in accordance with the principles and 
     commitments of the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
     in Europe, is of direct and material concern to the NATO 
     Alliance and its partners;
       Whereas the 50th anniversary NATO summit meeting, held on 
     April 24-25, 1999, in Washington, D.C., provided an historic 
     opportunity to chart a course for NATO in the next 
     millennium;
       Whereas 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 any 
     member state;
       Whereas NATO remains the embodiment of United States 
     engagement in Europe and therefore membership in NATO remains 
     a vital national security interest of the United States;
       Whereas the European members of NATO are today developing 
     within the Alliance a European Security and Defense Identity 
     (ESDI) in order to enhance their role within the Alliance, 
     while at the same time the European Union (EU) is seeking to 
     forge among its members a Common Foreign and Security Policy 
     (CFSP);
       Whereas the Berlin decisions of 1996 provided the framework 
     for strengthening the European pillar in NATO;
       Whereas NATO should remain the core security organization 
     of the evolving Euro-Atlantic architecture in which all 
     states enjoy the same freedom, cooperation, and security;
       Whereas 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;
       Whereas the membership of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and 
     Poland has strengthened NATO's ability to perform the full 
     range of NATO missions and bolstered its capability to 
     integrate former communist adversary nations into a community 
     of democracies;
       Whereas the organization of NATO national parliamentarians, 
     the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, serves as a unique 
     transatlantic forum for generating and maintaining 
     legislative and public support for the Alliance, and has 
     played a key role in initiating constructive dialogue between 
     NATO parliamentarians and parliamentarians in Central and 
     Eastern Europe; and
       Whereas NATO Parliamentary Assembly activities, such as the 
     Rose-Roth program to engage and educate Central and Eastern 
     European parliamentarians, have played a pioneering role in 
     familiarizing the new democracies with democratic 
     institutions and a civil society: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (hereafter in 
     this resolution referred to as ``NATO'') is to be commended 
     for its pivotal role in preserving trans-Atlantic peace and 
     stability;
       (2) the new NATO strategic concept, adopted by the Allies 
     at the summit meeting held in Washington, D.C. in April of 
     1999, articulates a concrete vision for the Alliance in the 
     21st century, clearly setting out the continued importance of 
     NATO for the citizens of the Allied nations, and establishing 
     that defense of shared interests and values is as important 
     for peace and stability as maintaining a vigorous capability 
     to carry out collective defense;
       (3) the Alliance, while maintaining collective defense as 
     its core function, should, as a fundamental Alliance task, 
     identify crisis management operations outside the NATO treaty 
     area, based on case-by-case consensual Alliance decisions;
       (4) the Alliance must recognize and act upon the threat 
     posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
     terrorism by intensifying consultations among political and 
     military leaders, and deploying comprehensive capabilities to 
     counter these threats to the international community at the 
     earliest possible date;
       (5) the Alliance should make clear commitments to remedy 
     shortfalls in areas such as logistics, command, control, 
     communications, intelligence, ground surveillance, readiness, 
     deployability, mobility, sustainability, survivability, 
     armaments cooperation, and effective engagement, including 
     early progress in the NATO force structure review;
       (6) the Alliance must ensure equitable sharing of 
     contributions to the NATO common budgets and overall defense 
     expenditure and capability-building;
       (7) the Alliance should welcome efforts by members of the 
     European Union (EU) to strengthen their military capabilities 
     and enhance their role within the Alliance through the 
     European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI);
       (8) the key to a vibrant and more influential ESDI is the 
     improvement of European military capabilities that will 
     strengthen the Alliance;
       (9) in order to preserve the solidarity and effectiveness 
     that has been achieved within the Alliance over the last 50 
     years, it is essential that security arrangements elaborated 
     under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) 
     complement, rather than duplicate NATO efforts and 
     institutions, and be linked to, rather than decoupled from 
     NATO structures, and provide for full and active involvement 
     of all European Allies rather than discriminating against 
     European Allies that are not members of the EU;
       (10) the Alliance should remain prepared to extend 
     invitations for accession negotiations

[[Page 27863]]

     to any appropriate European democracy meeting the criteria 
     for NATO membership as established in the Alliance's 1995 
     Study on NATO Enlargement and section 203(d)(3)(A) of the 
     NATO Participation Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note), on the 
     same conditions as applied to the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
     and Poland;
       (11) while maintaining its unchallenged right to make its 
     own decisions, NATO should seek to strengthen its relations 
     with Russia and Ukraine as essential partners in building 
     long-term peace in the Euro-Atlantic area; and
       (12) the Alliance should fully support the NATO 
     Parliamentary Assembly's activities in enhancing and 
     stabilizing parliamentary democracy in the nations of Central 
     and Eastern Europe, ensuring ratification of appropriate new 
     NATO members, continuing to deepen cooperation within the 
     Alliance, and forging democratic links with the new European 
     democracies.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution and claim control of the time for the opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
in favor of the motion?
  Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that basis, pursuant to clause 1(c) of 
rule XV, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) will control 
the 20 minutes reserved for the opposition.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley) be permitted to control 10 minutes of my 
time and that he be able to yield that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
for his initiative in bringing this resolution forward. The gentleman 
from Nebraska serves as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific and chairs the House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly. And I commend the original cosponsors the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for joining in this effort 
and for sharing with us their expertise in European security matters.
  House Resolution 59 expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has for 50 
years served as the preeminent organization to defend the territory of 
its member states against all external threats; welcomes the admission 
to NATO last March of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; and 
reiterates that America's NATO membership remains a vital national 
security interest of our Nation.
  These are sentiments to which we can all enthusiastically subscribe, 
and it is only fitting that we reaffirm them this year as we celebrate 
the 50th anniversary of NATO's founding.
  I am particularly pleased that this resolution touches on two 
additional matters that are important to the future of NATO and that 
warrant the full attention of the House of Representatives.
  The first of these matters is NATO enlargement. Beyond welcoming the 
recent addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the 
Alliance, House Resolution 59 expresses Congress' unequivocal support 
for the so-called ``open door'' policy toward future NATO enlargement 
that was articulated at the NATO summit meeting in Madrid, Spain, in 
July of 1997. That open door policy is a powerful signal of hope that 
we offer to the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe that 
have not yet been invited to join NATO. It further underscores that we 
are mindful of their security concerns, that we consider them future 
allies, and that we remain determined to facilitate their integration 
into the mainstream of Europe. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) and I led the House delegation to the Madrid summit and we 
strongly supported their decisions at that time.

                              {time}  1100

  Congress expressed its support for the open door policy in the 
European Security Act which the House first passed in 1997 and which 
President Clinton signed into law last year. It is helpful for the 
Congress to reiterate its support for this open door policy, 
particularly inasmuch as NATO's Washington summit last April 
disappointed some of the aspiring NATO Members in Central and Eastern 
Europe of postponing for the time giving any serious consideration of 
their candidacies for full membership in NATO.
  The second important matter addressed by House Resolution 59 is the 
ongoing effort to rethink their relationship with NATO. I am referring 
here to such an issue as the European Security and Defense Identity 
within NATO, the so-called ESDI, and the European Union's Common 
Foreign and Security Policy, or the CFSP.
  To the degree that these initiatives are about European allies 
contributing more to our common defense within NATO, we applaud them. 
After all, most of us would have been delighted if our European allies 
had been able to handle the Bosnian crisis on their own or if they 
could have contributed more to the allied operations in Kosovo.
  But many of us are troubled by indications that these initiatives may 
be the first step toward a divorce between the European and North 
American pillars of NATO. Some of our European allies seem to long for 
an independent military capability, one that is not just separable from 
NATO, but that is separate.
  Last December in Saint-Malo, France, the United Kingdom and France 
issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a ``national or 
multinational European means outside the NATO framework.''
  Subsequent to the Cologne Summit last June, the leaders of the 
European Union declared that the Union ``must have the capacity for 
autonomous action backed by credible military forces, the means to 
decide to use them and a readiness to do so without prejudice to 
actions by NATO.''
  For those of us who have long supported the transatlantic security 
bond that is represented by NATO, these are troubling sentiments. If 
the European Union develops a security mechanism on the Continent that 
excludes not only our Nation but also all the other non-European 
Members of NATO, including such important allies as Norway, Poland, and 
Turkey, then very serious damage will have been done to the fabric of 
the transatlantic security bond, and the logic of the continued U.S. 
security commitments to Europe that may be called into question.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 59 addresses this concern by pointing 
out that the key to a vibrant and a more influential ESDI is not new 
institutions, but the improvement of European military capabilities. 
The resolution further causes our allies in the European Union to 
elaborate their CFSP in a manner that does not duplicate NATO efforts 
and institutions, is not decoupled from NATO, and does not discriminate 
against European allies like Norway, Poland, and Turkey that are 
members of the EU. These are important concerns that need to be 
discussed within the alliance.
  Accordingly, Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge the House to 
agree to House Resolution 59.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, first of all let me say I have the utmost respect for 
the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman),

[[Page 27864]]

who has done a tremendous job in leading our Committee on International 
Relations. The gentleman has the respect of everyone who deals with 
him. He has been one of the most fair and thoughtful chairmen of the 
committee that we have had, and I respectfully disagree with him on 
this issue, as well as respectfully disagree with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who we have a disagreement, but 
these type of fundamental disagreements is what democracy is all about.
  Let me say that 20 years ago when we talked about NATO I was one of 
NATO's biggest boosters. As a speech writer for Ronald Reagan during 
the height of the Cold War, I worked to strengthen NATO and worked 
diligently to see that NATO would remain what it was supposed to be; 
and it was designed specifically to deter a land attack by the Soviet 
Union on Western Europe. NATO succeeded brilliantly. It helped stave 
off that attack until the Soviet Union collapsed in the weight of 
communism's vile contradictions as well as its own evil. But the Cold 
War is over. It is time for us to take a fundamental look at what our 
post-Cold War strategy will be and what is in the best interests of the 
United States now that the Cold War is over.
  There are new threats now to world peace, especially in the Pacific, 
and we have got to re-analyze where our priorities will be. Continuing 
to spend our limited resources on NATO actually undermines America's 
ability to deal with the number one threat to world peace, which, as I 
say, is on the other side of the planet from Europe. Specifically world 
peace is most greatly threatened now by the aggressiveness of Communist 
China. If we are to confront this threat to the world, we cannot just 
spend the money and resources that we have, the limited resources we 
have, protecting Western Europe against an invasion from the Soviet 
Union which no longer exists.
  We are told we must continue this spending of our limited defense 
dollars on NATO because it provides stability in Europe. Well, let the 
Europeans provide their own stability.
  I recently met, along with the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Gilman), the head of the German Bundestag, and, as a matter of fact, he 
told me that Germany would be spending less, not more, on its defense 
for at least the next 5 years.
  Well, why should the Europeans not think, Let the Americans do it? 
Because we are doing it for them. We are subsidizing the cost for the 
defense of people and nations who are much richer than we are.
  Furthermore, our continued commitment to NATO is bound to get us 
mixed up in more conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo. With the expansion 
of NATO, we will start hearing about conflicts like the one in Moldova. 
Now, we may sympathize with one faction or the other in Moldova, but do 
we really want to open up the possibility of sending our troops there 
as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation to ensure the stability of 
Europe? I do not think so.
  America has a vital role to play in determining the future of this 
planet and preserving peace and freedom on this planet. Our task has 
been, since the Second World War, to take on the biggest threats to 
democracy and freedom, threats that, if it were not for us, would 
irreversibly alter the balance of power toward tyranny and militarism.
  During the Second World War we saved the world from the Nazis and the 
Japanese militarists. We can be very proud of that. During the Cold War 
we stood firm against the Soviet Union and Communist expansion.
  Using our limited resources now for the stability of Europe, or to 
bring about peace to every troubled spot, to right every wrong, is 
counterproductive idealism and will weaken our ability to confront the 
major challenges to peace and freedom on this planet.
  NATO is the European way of playing we Americans as suckers once 
again. If we try to do everything for everybody, we will not be able to 
do anything for anybody. We will not be able to protect our own 
national security interests in the long run.
  This is not isolationism. This is a sound policy of an engagement 
strategy of picking and choosing commitments of where to spend our 
limited dollars.
  So, with that, I would ask people to consider seriously whether we 
should be supporting the expansion of NATO, or even America's current 
role in NATO.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 59, as amended. I 
would like to commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for 
introducing this resolution. Fifty years of membership in this 
extraordinary alliance has reaffirmed that NATO is at the heart of 
American national security.
  The original resolution passed our committee unanimously back in 
March. Understandably, in the wake of the military conflict in Kosovo, 
the full House postponed consideration of this matter. I am glad today 
we can resume deliberation on this worthy resolution.
  This resolution, as amended, makes technical changes to update the 
bill's chronology and to reflect the success of the Washington summit 
earlier this year. In addition, the resolution now expresses the sense 
of Congress about the building efforts among our European allies to 
create a stronger European Security and Defense Identity, ESDI, and a 
Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP.
  I once again commend the majority for cooperating with the minority 
in crafting this language on this issue. I also want to thank the 
chairman for allowing us this 10 minutes of debate. Along with the 
administration, we in Congress support these efforts by our European 
allies to shoulder a greater burden of military activities within NATO.
  In concert with the administration, we stress that these new efforts 
build on and compliment existing cooperation between the North American 
and European allies. Our partnership has provided security on the 
European continent for half a century. Today, in the aftermath of a 
Cold War, a strong NATO is as important as ever. If Bosnia and Kosovo 
have taught us anything, it is that security problems and the threats 
of war have not evaporated from the heart of Europe simply because the 
Soviet Union no longer exists.
  As I have said many times, we should always keep a door open for 
future membership for nations that will strengthen NATO and the 
security outlook in Europe. At the same time, we must also look to 
continually strengthen our relations with Russia and our partnership 
with them in the Ukraine in building long-term peace in Europe.
  Madam Speaker, I again commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) for including this language in the resolution. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, there are three problems with this 
resolution. The first is that the NATO treaty is defensive only, and by 
this resolution we expand NATO's purposes to permit actions outside of 
the defensive area of the NATO members.
  Secondly, the mechanism for approval of such actions in this 
resolution is referred to as ``a case by case consensual alliance'' 
decision, which, to me, is incompatible with the constitutional 
requirement that the use of force, in a context that a normal 
understanding would call war, would have to be done by resolution of 
both Houses of Congress.
  Third and last, because of the timing of this resolution, 
particularly that it was introduced on February 11 during the Kosovo 
war, I believe that it is open to the misinterpretation as a 
ratification, admittedly posthoc ratification, of the use of force 
under the NATO aegis in that context.
  I draw specific attention now to the text of the resolution that 
supports

[[Page 27865]]

each of these three points. On page 4, the resolved clause says that 
the new NATO strategic concept ``articulates a concrete vision'' 
establishing that ``defense of shared interests and values'' is ``as 
important for peace and stability as maintaining a vigorous capability 
to carry out collective defense.''
  I pause in my quotation for a moment. So whereas the original NATO 
treaty deals with collective defense, this resolution says it is 
equally important that we prosecute shared interests and values. What 
are those shared interests and values?
  The answer is found on Page 2 in the whereas clauses, we learn what 
some of those are. ``Whereas such challenges to NATO allied interests 
and values include . . .'' continuing quote, ``conflicts outside the 
treaty area stemming from unresolved historical disputes.'' An obvious 
reference, at least to me, given the date of this resolution in 
February of this year, to the Kosovo war, and an obvious example (I 
could not ask for a more clear one) of the use of force outside the 
treaty area, whereas the NATO treaty itself specifies that the NATO 
countries will treat an attack upon the sovereign integrity of anyone 
as an attack upon all. It was a defensive territorial-focused treaty.
  Lastly, on page 5, in the third resolved clause, beginning on page 4, 
the resolution provides that the alliance should, again just picking 
out the words, now I quote, ``identify crisis management operations 
outside the NATO treaty area based on a case-by-case consensual 
alliance decision.''
  In other words, the alliance will make its decisions on a consensual 
basis for when to go outside of area. That is what it says, outside of 
the NATO treaty area, outside of the authorized area for the use of 
force under the terms of the NATO treaty as it was ratified by the 
Senate.

                              {time}  1115

  And who will decide? It will be by consensual decisions of the 
Alliance, not by the Senate and House of the United States Congress, 
which is what the Constitution requires.
  I close with a word of concern about my effort to try to instill 
respect for the Constitution in the area of war-making authority. I 
have fought to bring the resolution regarding the war to the floor 
during the Kosovo war. I am happy to say that we did our constitutional 
duty. We stood up and said no, we did not authorize the use of force.
  Nevertheless, the President went ahead and for 79 days bombed 
Yugoslavia which was not at war with the United States, which had not 
threatened the territorial integrity of a single NATO country. In that 
context, this resolution was introduced.
  It will appear to a court, I believe, as though we are today sending 
a message of ratification that we did not at that time. Nor is this an 
extreme or far-fetched belief, because the Federal District Court, in 
rejecting the lawsuit with which I followed my actions on the House 
floor, the Federal District Court ruled that a Member of Congress 
lacked standing to assert the Constitution when there was war happening 
in Kosovo, that a Member of Congress could not bring the lawsuit.
  The reason the judge said so was not because of what Congress had 
done in voting against the use of force, in voting against the bombing, 
but what Congress had not done: that the House had not voted to 
withdraw the troops. In other words, the Federal District judge took an 
implication from the failure of the House to act.
  That is a remarkable stretch for judicial interpretation. How much 
more easily will a court interpret a resolution we pass today 
applauding the use of extraterritorial NATO force, according to 
consensual NATO processes?
  I fear for the Nation when the safeguards placed in operation by our 
Founders in the Constitution are cavalierly set aside, as I believe 
they were during the Kosovo war. I have nothing but the highest regard 
for those who offered this resolution, but I must disagree with their 
effort.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the distinguished chairman of 
our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time, and for the good survey that he has provided in his initial 
comments.
  One of the reasons this legislation is so important, the resolution 
being moved today, is because many of us have concerns about the new 
European pillar that would be created within the European Union as a 
result of the Franco-British accord and the Cologne summit of the EU 
that followed. There is the likelihood, the way things are proceeding, 
that the European pillar, the ESDI, would be created outside NATO 
within the European Union.
  As the chairman indicated, we are concerned about decoupling this 
European capacity from NATO, that is one D; about discrimination 
against members of NATO that are not members of the European Union, 
that is the second D; and about duplication of effort, the third D, 
duplication between NATO's capacities and the capacity that would be 
created within the European Union.
  For these reasons addressed by the resolve clause in this resolution, 
its passage is particularly important today.
  I do want to assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
that I certainly understand the security concerns we have in the Asia-
Pacific region. After all, as the chairman of that subcommittee, I 
focus on these things. But as this resolution puts forth, there are 
other concerns today that the members of NATO really did not expect to 
be facing. They relate, for example, to proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and terrorism.
  I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), that I think his concerns, which are legitimate in general, 
are overwrought and do not directly relate to this resolution.
  It is true the resolution was originally introduced in February. It 
is not meant to have nor do I think it does have any impact upon a 
ratification of the use of force with respect to Bosnia or in Kosovo, 
for that matter.
  I want to also emphasize for my colleagues that nothing provided in 
our NATO membership impinges upon the constitutional guarantees for the 
use of force, for example, in which Congress should have a role, which 
this Congressman from California has diligently been trying to pursue, 
to his credit. This does not impinge upon the constitutional processes 
of any member state, including the United States.
  I would say this point needs to be made to the gentleman, that any 
kind of out-of-area action by NATO must be held to the standard that 
that kind of out-of-area action must be important to the security of 
one or more of the members of NATO. That is the only justification for 
out-of-area action by NATO forces. Even if it is a combined joint task 
force, a coalition, if the U.S. would participate, we must insist upon 
that out-of-area action being important to the security of one or more 
of the members of NATO, of the 19 countries that are part of that 
treaty.
  I think it is an important resolution to pass. I think it is 
particularly important in light of what is happening in the European 
Union.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, deep under the Ural 
Mountains, under a mountain called Yamantau, the Russians continue to 
build and expand the world's largest, deepest, most nuclear-secure 
facility.
  Started under Brezhnev, they have now spent $4.5 billion on this 
super-secret facility. They are doing this, and by the way, they are 
now increasing, they are ramping up their efforts. They are doing this 
at a time when they cannot pay their military, when they cannot provide 
housing for their military.
  I asked my colleagues and I asked administration officials, why would 
they do this? What I am told is they do this because they are paranoid.
  I have had a super top secret code word briefing on what is called 
silver bullets. These are efforts on the part of the Russians to 
leapfrog our war-making capabilities. They know they cannot compete 
with us in conventional

[[Page 27866]]

weaponry, so they are seeking to leapfrog our technologies so our war-
making capabilities will be neutralized.
  I asked again, why would they do this? What I am told is they do this 
because they are paranoid. They have so many, so many needs in their 
country, why would they spend money doing this?
  If they are doing these things because they are paranoid, then I ask 
the question, why would we want to feed their paranoia by expanding 
NATO? They see NATO as a threat. Why would we want to feed their 
paranoia? NATO may have a role to play. That role should not be in 
antagonizing the Russians, in feeding their paranoia. If we are to pass 
a resolution like this, it needs to be reworded so it will not be 
threatening to the Russians.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I have read the resolution. I do not view 
any word in the resolution as threatening in any way to Russia. That is 
why I can rise in strong support of the resolution today.
  There is no doubt that America must remain firmly committed to NATO, 
as it remains firmly committed to ensuring the peace and stability on 
the European continent and throughout the North Atlantic region.
  This resolution was drafted in anticipation of the 50th anniversary 
of NATO held here in Washington last April. For 50 years NATO has stood 
as the preeminent defense alliance protecting this Nation, its allies, 
and its vital interests from the threat of aggression and the threat of 
regional instability.
  For 50 years NATO has provided this Nation with the invaluable 
opportunity to remain constantly and actively engaged with its key 
allies. For 50 years NATO has proven that Nations sharing common 
ideologies, common values, and common goals can in fact stand stronger 
together than if alone, and can maintain peace in difficult, dangerous 
times.
  Fifty years ago, NATO was created to hedge against the spread of 
tyranny in a war-ravaged Europe. At the time there were doubters, those 
who believed, even after the United States found itself drawn into two 
world wars within 25 years, that we should go it alone and close the 
gates to fortress America.
  Thankfully, this country did not adopt such a strategy. Instead, we 
employed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe from the ashes of 
conflict, and we established NATO to provide for the defense against 
the post-war totalitarianism in the region.
  Isolationism did not prevail then, and it is very appropriate, 50 
years after the creation of that Alliance, to deflect the scattered 
cries for a new form of isolationism in this country.
  For 40 years NATO stood not only as a line of defense but as an 
incredibly effective deterrent. For the last 10 years NATO has stood 
ready to preserve European stability. It has been successful in its 
evolving mission. Most recently, and while facing very daunting 
challenges, NATO has sought to bring peace and stability to the 
Balkans, the very region that provided the spark that led to the 
conflagration known as the First World War.
  Back in 1949, many in the United States claimed that we should not be 
engaged in Europe because we could not maintain peace in a region 
naturally drawn to war. It was argued then that the history of Europe 
was one of nationalism and ethnic extremism, and war among those 
nations was inevitable. Yet, because of NATO, Western Europe has seen 
one of the most peaceful and prosperous periods in its history.
  Throughout the nineties we have heard the same argument regarding any 
attempts to maintain peace in central Europe. In fact, not many months 
ago, many in this House insisted that NATO would not remain unified in 
its action against the tyranny of Milosevic. Yet the Alliance stood 
firm, and military success was achieved.
  The peace will be hard fought, but by tapping into the resolve and 
commitment exhibited by the members of NATO, which now including 
members close to the Balkans, peace and stability can be established in 
the wake of military successes.


                            NATO Enlargement

  This resolution also commemorates the enlargement of NATO to include 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The success of NATO and its 
members' drive to contain, and ultimately de-construct, Soviet authori- 
tarianism, has led to the flourishing of democratic movements 
throughout Central and Eastern Europe. The inclusion in NATO of three 
key nations formerly bound by the Iron Curtain speaks volumes for the 
power of the alliance and its relevance in today's changing 
geopolitical landscape.


                New Threats Demands a Commitment to NATO

  As this nation, its allies, and the alliances to which we belong, 
face new and unconventional threats from rogue nations, terrorist 
states and weapons of mass destruction, the deterrent effect of NATO 
remains relevant and vital. If those who would commit atrocities can 
look to the cohesiveness and determination of a broader reaching NATO, 
they will be more likely to give pause to any rash acts against 
alliance members or their interests. The United States must maintain a 
leadership role in NATO's preparedness against these new threats. Our 
citizens travel the world. Their government must be there with them--
strong and committed.
  No alliance, no strategy, and no plan creates certainty in 
international relations. However, NATO's unparalleled success in 
protecting Europe and the North Atlantic region proves that, with 
courage and determination, this Nation can boldly assert the values of 
democracy and peace.
  In conclusion, let me just commend today not only the institution of 
NATO and its member nations but those who actually make the peace 
possible, our troops stationed abroad with their Alliance colleagues, 
working together to ensure the mutual security of all our families.
  I look forward to the future successes of NATO and the ideals it 
protects.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, my 
classmate from California, and even though we do have a disagreement in 
this, his generosity shows in letting us discuss this and having a 
useful debate.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) for their extraordinary 
leadership on this issue.
  I think it is important to know that it is a different world today 
and a more dangerous world. NATO has been the anchor for our national 
security in Europe for lo these many decades, since the Second World 
War. It still is our anchor. It is still a value-added organization for 
the member states and their related partners in the organization for a 
couple of reasons.
  First, the common defense is very obvious. Greater efforts toward 
peace and stability are what we all strive at when we are dealing with 
foreign affairs and national security.
  Secondly, the interrelationships between the member states to stress 
working cooperation on areas where they can cooperate, rather than to 
relate to some of the differences they have had historically that have 
led to tragic consequences on that continent, I think is a very 
important by-product of the NATO organization.
  But third, and the thing that is before us today, and the reason this 
resolution is so important to support, is the challenge of how should 
NATO focus its energies in today's world and what should NATO's 
capabilities therefore be.
  I think it is critically important that the United States of America 
be a very strong voice in those deliberations and in those decisions 
and the discussion. I think that is exactly why we are here today 
sending a resolution saying we will be a strong voice, and also 
resolving some of the issues that our colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), have brought forward properly that do need to be 
resolved.

[[Page 27867]]


  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, for 50 years it has been ritualistic for 
American public officials in public bodies to affirm support and 
solidarity for NATO. We should remember why. NATO was formed as a 
protection against the possibility of a Soviet attack, armed attack, 
armed aggression, against Western Europe, and to bring the United 
States and Western Europe together as a defense alliance.
  That purpose and that danger no longer exists. NATO nonetheless has 
many other purposes, and they are properly delineated in this 
resolution.

                              {time}  1130

  I must oppose this resolution nonetheless because of three paragraphs 
in it. The resolution states, ``approval for the membership of the 
Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in NATO and invites further 
enlargement of NATO from other former Warsaw Pact countries,'' and then 
says contradictorily, ``NATO should seek to strengthen its relations 
with Russia and Ukraine as its central partners in building long-term 
peace in the Euro Atlantic area.''
  Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but Russia is still 
a large nation and potentially a friendly one or potentially a 
dangerous one, and our policy should be directed at trying to enhance 
those forces within Russia, trying to transform that country into a 
democratic market economy, into a friendly country, into a responsible 
country, instead of doing what we can to provoke nationalistic forces, 
to provoke xenophobic forces, to provoke dictatorial forces in Russia.
  The expansion of NATO is a direct provocation to all segments of 
Russia's political spectrum; weakens the democratic forces; weakens the 
pro-market forces, weakens the pro-Western forces and strengthens the 
xenophobic and ultranationalistic forces. It is unnecessary, and it 
makes this world a more dangerous place.
  This resolution, were it not for those three paragraphs, would be 
worthy of support and with those three paragraphs it goes in the wrong 
direction and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, NATO was originally formed in 1949 as a 
defensive alliance. It was formed to protect against attacks, not to 
initiate attacks. Moreover, NATO's charter, Article 5 defines the 
alliance as ``collective defense against armed attack and limits NATO 
to attacking only in self-defense.'' Article 5 of the NATO treaty 
states, ``the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of 
them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against 
them all.''
  I believe that nations should have that security and have the ability 
to defend themselves against unprovoked aggression. NATO provided this 
blanket of security for the North Atlantic countries for the past 50 
years. That is why Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, wanted to join. 
This is why Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Romania and others 
want to join NATO, for increased protection, for increased security; 
and so NATO has changed.
  The recent attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the first 
action ever taken by NATO against a sovereign nation. This action did 
not satisfy Article 5 of the NATO charter, which limits NATO to 
defensive attacks. No country attacked a NATO country prior to the NATO 
attack in the Kosovo province and Yugoslavia.
  So while today this resolution would recommit the United States to 
NATO and European security, we must honestly ask if the mission of NATO 
and the NATO treaty was violated by the Kosovo bombing. In mid-April as 
the war continued over Yugoslavia, NATO modified its charter combining 
both defensive and offensive actions. The strategic concept, which 
Congress will endorse with this resolution, now states in part 4, 
section 41, that NATO ``must be prepared to contribute to conflict 
prevention and to conduct non-Article 5 crisis response operations,'' 
end of quote, which means NATO can conduct unilateral bombing against 
any nation.
  This is a blank check to wage war. The implications of this change 
will be serious, and this Congress must take note of it so that NATO 
does not become a law unto itself, a blind, unconscious force which 
usurps democrat process and values and becomes an impersonal force, and 
it is more powerful than individual nations.
  If NATO is endorsed as an offensive force, what does this mean? Does 
it mean an end to the United Nations security role? Will it mean that 
NATO may act unilaterally anywhere in the world according to what it 
deems is a threat? Does it mean that there are no limits to NATO's 
potential military actions, since all NATO has to do is to change its 
charter to justify mission creep?
  Now, I support the defensive security which NATO has to offer. NATO 
was formed to protect against attacks, not to initiate attacks.
  I believe that this Congress must retake its role as described in the 
constitution, article 1, Section 8, that this Congress has the power 
and the authority alone to put this country into war. We should not 
cede it to a President, and we should not cede it to the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) for his generosity in yielding me this time.
  Another gentleman from New York talked about his concerns about the 
expansion of NATO, and I understand that there is controversy about the 
fact that the Czech Republic and Poland and Hungary were brought into 
the first tranche of new membership, moving the membership from 16 to 
19, but the Congress in both Houses by various means in direct action 
on the floor of the House and the Senate have approved that expansion 
and our executive branch has implemented it by the treaty change.
  In fact, I think there is strong sentiment to responsibly, carefully 
expand NATO as other countries prepare and do meet the qualifications 
for membership. It is certainly understandable why the countries of 
Eastern and Central Europe want to be a part of NATO. NATO, after all, 
was founded on the principle of the rule of law and individual liberty.
  It has become the cornerstone of Western peace and prosperity. It has 
permitted a sharing of the burden of national defense where all 16 
countries, now 19, agree that attack on one is an attack against all. 
Because we no longer have a looming threat to our very survival since 
the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the absolute significance of this 
collective guarantee has faded from some memories, the gentleman of 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has just reminded us about the need for NATO. I 
think he reinforced the need for NATO. I think it is fair to say, 
therefore, that without NATO, tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of 
millions of people would have been subjected to continuing tyranny.
  NATO has been a dramatic success; and now, as I mentioned, Europe, 
our NATO allies and indeed the United States faces a whole range of 
additional threats and concerns which, in part, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) spoke to a few minutes ago. NATO nevertheless 
remains the ultimate bulwark against a reemergence of a destabilizing 
hegemonic power. We hope that is not Russia but, in fact, some of the 
concerns that the gentleman from Maryland raised are there in people's 
minds. We are extending, in a variety of fashions, through the NATO 
structure, a hand of peace and assistance to Russia and indeed the 
Ukraine, but they have to be willing to accept it; and we are committed 
to working with them.
  I think it is important that we focus finally on why it is that this 
resolution is before us. It is a concern that NATO may be weakened to 
address traditional mutual defense responsibilities or new threats to 
NATO countries by a dividing of the European Union's responsibilities 
with NATO.

[[Page 27868]]


  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion let me reiterate that the U.S. continues 
to have a vital interest in a strong and in an enlarged NATO. To my 
colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), I would say that he and I 
agree about the threats to international peace and security that exist 
and are growing in the Asia Pacific region; but it is helpful to us, 
not harmful, to be an alliance with like-minded democracies as we 
develop strategies to address these threats. We are infinitely stronger 
in dealing with countries like China and North Korea when we combine 
resources and align ourselves with the democracies in Western Europe.
  To the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), I say that there is 
nothing in this resolution that suggests or is intended to suggest that 
we are surrendering our constitutional prerogatives to declare war when 
NATO contemplates military action.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Speaker, the chairman of our full committee gave 
his assurance and he is a man of honor and I am grateful for that 
assurance on the record. However, the words of the resolution say that 
we commend NATO for choosing, as a new role, to identify crisis 
management operations outside the NATO treaty area based on case-by-
case consensual alliance decisions, and the resolution was dated 
February 11, in the middle of the Kosovo war.
  Madam Speaker, there is no ambiguity that this will be taken as an 
approval for the mechanism that was being used at that moment. My dear 
friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), says that the NATO 
treaty is consistent with the constitution. Yes, but the war in Kosovo 
was not; it was not.
  The House did not declare war. The Senate did not declare war. And it 
was war. The President said it was armed conflict, not war. The 
American people know it was war, and in the midst of that war when this 
resolution was introduced, this resolution says that we applaud and 
agree with this new task for NATO to choose crisis management 
operations outside the treaty area.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today we have heard a very useful debate, but it is a 
very serious debate; and it is especially serious for the next 
generation of Americans. Where are we going to put our emphasis? Where 
are we going to put our dollars? Where are we going to put our 
commitments? NATO costs between $10 billion and $20 billion every year 
just to be a part of NATO.
  After 5 years of spending with NATO or 10 years of NATO spending, we 
could have a missile defense system for the United States of America, 
but we are giving that up by simply providing $10 billion to $20 
billion a year for European stability.
  This resolution is designed, of course, for the expansion of NATO, 
and by its very nature will cause fear in Russia and, as the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) pointed out, is counterproductive, will lead 
to worse relations with Russia when we should be trying to help the 
democratic elements in Russia not fear the United States of America. It 
will leave us weaker in the Pacific.
  Finally, as this resolution is designed, it is designed to get us 
into more conflicts like Bosnia, like Kosovo, and perhaps in Africa, 
perhaps in Moldavia. We do not need to waste our precious resources and 
risk the lives of our people in these conflicts around the world. That 
is what this resolution is designed to do. It is a blank check for 
America's young people to go overseas and to spend our limited defense 
dollars in a counterproductive way.
  NATO served its purpose. Let us declare victory in the Cold War and 
come home and set our new priorities which have more to do with the 
reality of today than the reality of 20 years ago and 40 years ago. I 
oppose this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for yielding me additional time.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, NATO has served our national interest 
well for the last 50 years, will serve us well into the future and will 
help consolidate and expand democracy in Europe, and it will strengthen 
the forces of democracy in dealing with the emerging threats in Asia 
and elsewhere. This resolution is not a blank check that Congress must 
author. This is an important resolution. I urge my colleagues to fully 
support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of House 
Resolution 59 to express the sense that the House should remain 
committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For fifty years 
NATO has protected our borders and the borders of our allies, 
preserving democracy, the rule of law and individual liberties. NATO 
has served as an important forum for promoting stability in the North 
Atlantic region and is representative of the collective effort of the 
North Atlantic states defending members against security risks. Indeed 
NATO remains the preeminent institution for addressing future external 
threats.
  NATO has played a key role in developing democracies and instilling 
democratic ideals in Central and Eastern Europe. This too helps to 
solidify the security of the rest of the North Atlantic region.
  Recognizing that the security of NATO member states 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 an important concern to the NATO Alliance and its partners.
  For these reasons, the House of Representatives should commend NATO 
and its work and should support its future efforts to maintain peace 
and stability in the North Atlantic region. The House must remain 
committed to the Alliance and should promote the adoption of a 
strategic concept clearly establishing that defense of shared interests 
and values that are as important for peace and stability as maintaining 
a vigorous capability to carry out collective defense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 59, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam 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.

                          ____________________