[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF NATO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the upcoming 
celebration this weekend of the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization and, of course, on the ongoing military operation 
against Yugoslavia.
  The NATO allies will also meet for its annual summit and formally 
welcome the three new members, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech 
Republics.
  I was watching Nightline on Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, and the 
subject was NATO and its 50th anniversary. In one segment of the 
program, they went around Washington, D.C. and actually asked different 
citizens what they believed the role of NATO should be.
  Most answered that NATO should be ``peacekeepers for any conflict,'' 
or that NATO ``should protect humanity,'' or they should stop genocide. 
With all due respect to their opinions, each of these Americans were 
not correct about what NATO's initial responsibility should be.
  NATO was created to be solely a collective security arrangement for 
the Western allies against Soviet and Eastern Bloc aggression. NATO 
came into being 50 years ago when the U.S. joined its allies in signing 
the treaty on April 4, 1949. The U.S. Senate went on to ratify the 
treaty on July 21, 1949.
  I am concerned with the current operations against Yugoslavia as a 
NATO operation. NATO does not have the authority under the current 
treaty terms to engage in the actions against Yugoslavia. By doing so, 
the stakes have been raised dramatically high. The President has 
allowed NATO to be put into a position that in order to prove its 
validity and effectiveness in a post-Cold War world, NATO has to win 
this war at all costs. This rigidity has prevented the administration 
and our NATO allies to take the sensible steps on seeking diplomatic 
solutions.
  In fact, the administration last week flatly refused to consider a 
possible diplomatic opening that Germany was trying to seek with 
Yugoslavia.
  Again, the President is intentionally raising the stakes in this 
engagement that makes anything less than our all-out victory a defeat. 
This strategy places U.S. prestige and ability to carry out our will in 
the world at tremendous risk. As stated before, this operation also 
brings into question the purpose of NATO in today's world.
  The current operation against Yugoslavia is draining our military 
capability. There are some reports that the Navy was down to 200 cruise 
missiles in the theater of operation.
  Nightline reported last night that out of over 6,000 sorties flown in 
the last 28 days, only 1,700 have been bombing missions. After 6 years 
of stretching our military too thin, the administration has placed our 
Nation's military abilities at dangerously low levels.
  The shrinking cruise missile supply, combined with our military 
having to convert our nuclear-tipped missiles to conventional warheads, 
places our abilities in a global scale at hazardous levels. If our 
Nation is faced with a second conflict, the security of the world is at 
great peril.
  During this weekend's NATO summit, the NATO leaders will discuss 
changing the strategic concept of NATO from a defensive organization 
towards a more proactive force to combat new global risks such as 
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The 
administration seems to want NATO to be a global force ready to tackle 
any trouble in the world.
  If this administration seeks to change the basic concept of NATO, it 
would violate the U.S. Constitution. Here is why. The treaty signed in 
1949 was to provide for the defense of Western Europe. Any change to 
that treaty would require a new treaty, and therefore confirmation by 
the U.S. Senate by a two-thirds majority.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems this administration is out to conduct a 
military action here. Secretary Madeleine Albright recently stated, 
``The military are our regulars now, so this is their job. What else 
would they be doing if we didn't give them their battles to fight?''
  Secretary Albright also recently testified before Congress and said, 
``I would rather be up here defending myself for not having a plan than 
having to defend myself for not doing anything.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, when we have this kind of rhetoric from the White 
House, choosing to use our military in a questionable war because the 
military has ``nothing better to do,'' or that their use without a 
strategy is better than ``not doing anything,'' is when events like 
Vietnam occur.

                          ____________________