[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21831-21835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167, GERALD B. H. SOLOMON FREEDOM 
                       CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2001

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 277 ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3167) to endorse the 
     vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance 
     articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and 
     by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, 
     and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     International Relations now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     International Relations; (2) a further amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by 
     Representative Lantos of California or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
modified closed rule for consideration of the Gerald Solomon Freedom 
Consolidation Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill.
  The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
International Relations now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
adopted. The rule provides for consideration of only the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record, if 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) or his designee, 
which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial rule for a noncontroversial, 
but important, bill. The Gerald Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act 
endorses the work of President Bush and President Clinton to expand 
NATO into Eastern Europe. It also authorizes military assistance to 
seven potential NATO members.
  Mr. Speaker, during its markup of this measure, the Committee on 
International Relations passed one amendment, an amendment to name H.R. 
3167 after our former Committee on Rules chairman, Gerald Solomon. 
Chairman Solomon, who passed away the week before last, was a dear 
friend to all of us on the Committee on Rules, and he and Mr. Moakley, 
who, unfortunately, passed away earlier this year, were quite a pair 
together. They disagreed often, but they always did it as gentlemen and 
they always did it with a great deal of humor, and quite frankly, all 
of us miss them a lot.
  While he was a Member, Chairman Solomon was also a strong advocate 
for NATO. Indeed, during his last year on the Hill, he even published a 
book about NATO expansion. It is fitting, therefore, that we honor Mr. 
Solomon with this bill today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It will allow for the 
consideration of the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 
2001.
  As my colleague from North Carolina has described, this rule provides 
for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
International Relations. This rule will permit a Democratic substitute, 
if offered by the committee's ranking minority member. No other 
amendments may be offered from the House floor.
  The bill expresses the support of Congress for expanding the number 
of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It recognizes the 
importance of admitting seven specific nations in Central and Eastern 
Europe. This legislation is in keeping with the vision expressed by 
both President Clinton and President Bush.
  I want to take this opportunity to express my sadness at the loss of 
former House Member and Committee on Rules chairman Jerry Solomon, who 
died last month of heart failure. Jerry and I often found ourselves on 
different sides of the issue, but we were fully united in our respect 
for the House of Representatives and our role in leading the Nation.
  Jerry was a man of honor and integrity. He spoke his heart and he 
stood up for his beliefs without hesitation. It is fitting that this 
bill is named in his memory.
  With that, I urge the adoption of the rule and of the underlying.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Charlotte for 
yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate her, as well as I see 
my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) here, the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on International

[[Page 21832]]

Relations, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is in the Chamber. I wanted to 
congratulate them.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his statement. 
I see the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is here. I tried to 
mention just about everybody in the Chamber. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is right behind him.
  I do not want to see any other Members, so I can make my points here.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. Both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) made it clear it is a fitting tribute to my predecessor, 
Jerry Solomon. We continue to mourn his passing and extend our 
condolences to Freda and his wonderful family.
  We know that Jerry Solomon was, as was stated so eloquently in the 
tributes that were given at his funeral last week, a real fighter, and 
I considered him to be a fighter with a heart, because he was one who 
stood firmly for principle, but had a great warmth and kindness to him 
as well.

                              {time}  1115

  He fought as hard as anyone to expand the cause of freedom throughout 
the world. I should say parenthetically that I had the privilege of 
joining my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), for a delegation 
that observed one of the freest and fairest elections that I have had 
the opportunity to observe in the many years that I have been able to 
serve here in the Congress and visit elections around the world; and 
this election took place in Nicaragua just this past weekend. We saw 
the people of Nicaragua overwhelmingly state their preference, and I 
should say that I am very gratified that they came out on the side of 
freedom and self-determination, and it is something that would have 
made Jerry Solomon very proud. That was in this hemisphere.
  The legislation that we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker, is 
focused on the very important North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
alliance which, as we all know, has been critically important to many 
of the national security and foreign policy successes that we have had 
around the world.
  Mr. Solomon wrote a very thoughtful volume on the importance of NATO 
expansion, and I believe that that is one of the major reasons that his 
name is very appropriately tied to this legislation. As the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) said, the prospect of the expansion of these seven 
countries into the NATO alliance is something that I believe is on the 
horizon, and I believe that we need to encourage it. I should say that 
President Bush is a strong proponent of NATO expansion and has made 
that clear in more than a few addresses and in his policy proposals.
  So I think that we have done the right thing here in paying tribute 
to our dear friend, Jerry Solomon. I will continue to miss him every 
day. I am happy to say that there is a spectacular portrait of Mr. 
Solomon that is in the Committee on Rules and, I would invite any of 
our colleagues who would like to come by and take a look at that 
portrait if you have not testified before the Committee on Rules lately 
to come and visit us there and to know that when we overwhelmingly pass 
this rule and the legislation itself, it will be a great tribute that 
we can provide to this wonderful man.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time at this 
time. I could have some requests, so I would ask the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) to go ahead with her speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for yielding me this time and for her service, of course, on the 
Committee on Rules as well.
  Mr. Speaker, as we continue to defend democracy and freedom, which is 
what this Nation is about today, and the battle in the war against 
terrorism within our own borders, it is important to remember that we 
are not alone. We are not the only country that upholds the ideals that 
we are fighting for. Our friends and allies in the NATO alliance have 
helped us to defend democracy across the Atlantic and beyond in so many 
ways and for so many years during the Cold War. We now have the 
opportunity to expand our NATO alliance and allow new democracies in 
Central and Eastern Europe and other areas to join in the defense of 
freedom, something we all care greatly about.
  This legislation outlines and reaffirms congressional support for 
further enlargement of NATO as expressed in statements by President 
Bush and former President Clinton. It does not call for the admission 
of any specific country to NATO, but is supported by the candidates of 
all contenders which meet the criteria outlined by the current NATO 
members. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Baltics, Slovenia, Slovakia, 
Bulgaria and Romania are keenly interested, I know from personal 
experience, and there are others.
  In addition, the Solomon Act authorizes funding for military 
assistance for each candidate in accordance with administration 
requests for 2002. In other words, we are together on this here on the 
Hill and downtown. The modest cost of this assistance is a very small 
price to pay for the potential of gaining long-term allies in a 
formalized way in this critical region of the world. As a member of the 
House of Representatives delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, 
I have been privileged to see firsthand how the expansion of NATO is a 
lot more than about just the falling of the last remnants of ice from 
the old Cold War. The fact is, just a dozen or so years ago, many of 
these nations we are talking about were part of a Warsaw Pact that was 
pledged to destroy NATO. Think about that. Now, these nations are vying 
for a relationship of mutual protection with the West.
  As we move through these uncertain times, it is of great importance, 
of course, that we cultivate the strongest ties possible with all of 
the nations of Europe. NATO expansion, under membership guidelines and 
procedures already agreed upon, will help the United States achieve 
this very, very important goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly count the number of hours, meetings, 
trips, speeches, reports, or personnel we have talked to and invested 
in the question of NATO expansion. In all of this, Jerry Solomon, his 
vision, his leadership, showed the way; and he made the case very 
forcefully. He even made the case in Moscow that someday Russia will 
join NATO, and I have no doubt to believe that.
  This legislation will send a strong and welcome signal. People do pay 
attention to what this Congress does, and now is the time to gear up 
for the expansion in NATO that will be discussed one year from now in 
Prague. I urge support for this legislation. It really does matter.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). As chairman of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and vice chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, we rely on him a lot for his expertise in this 
area, and it is quite evident that he has been involved in this for 
many, many years. So I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, 
but in opposition to the underlying legislation. Let me take a moment 
to salute Jerry Solomon, who was a dear friend. We will miss Jerry 
Solomon. It is a pain in our hearts that we will have as someone who 
meant so much to us and he is no longer with us. I worked so many hours 
on so many issues over the years with Jerry that I think that no doubt, 
on both sides of the aisle, he will be dearly missed.
  Now let us talk about NATO. NATO will not be missed. NATO has done 
its job. NATO deserves to pass on, because NATO accomplished its 
mission and now it deserves to dissolve.

[[Page 21833]]

  We called on this organization, we created this organization back 
when there was a major Soviet threat to invade Western Europe. Thus we 
created NATO in order to deter war, not to waste money, because that 
money was necessary at the time. But instead, to deter a Soviet 
invasion of Western Europe. It did its job, and it did its job well.
  During the Cold War, it served to stand guard and to deter attack and 
that attack was deterred; and it saved lives and it helped us come to 
the end of the Cold War. But the Cold War is over. The price we paid 
for NATO in the tens of billions of dollars was worth it back then. It 
is not worth it now.
  In fact, what NATO today is is nothing more than a subsidy for the 
defense of Western Europe and in Europe as a whole. They can afford, 
our European friends can afford to pay for their own defense now. When 
NATO was first created, they were coming out of World War II, their 
economies were in a shambles; and yes, we stepped forward to protect 
the world against communism, just as we stepped forward to protect the 
world against Japanese militarism and Nazism. We can be proud of that, 
and we can be proud of the role NATO played. But today, the purpose 
NATO was created for has passed away, and the Europeans can afford to 
pay for their own defense. By staying in NATO, we are going to 
continually be involved in missions like those in Kosovo and Bosnia, 
right in our European friends' backyard, and we end up paying a major 
portion of that battle in Kosovo and Bosnia. That makes no sense.
  Our European friends are richer than we are. The European governments 
have many, many more services for their people than we have for our own 
people, because we are spending that money trying to police the world. 
By keeping NATO going, it just reinforces that policy that the United 
States is going to be the policeman of the world.
  Furthermore, by expanding NATO the way this bill is proposing, we are 
slapping Russia in the face. Come on. Come on, now. NATO was 
established to counter the Soviet Union, and now the Russians have done 
what we always wanted them to do: cast off this dictatorship. And what 
do we do? We try to expand this military alliance right into their 
front yard. That is wrong.
  Russia has disbanded the Warsaw Pact; it is trying to be democratic. 
President Putin is making efforts. In fact, he was the first one to 
call President Bush to offer his help when America was attacked on 
September 11. We should not be putting that type of pressure on a 
democratic Russia. We should, instead, be reinforcing that we are their 
friends and no longer consider Russia a threat. If Russia ever goes 
back to its old ways, we can reconfigure that. I would just say NATO is 
not helping us as much as they should in this current crisis, so why 
should we continue subsidizing our European friends.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have here a satellite photograph of a section of the 
Euro mountains in Russia called Yamantau Mountain. Here is Yamantau 
Mountain. Just south of Yamantau Mountain are two cities, two closed 
cities, by the way; and they house about 60,000 people that do nothing 
but work on Yamantau Mountain.
  Now, Yamantau Mountain is the largest, deepest, nuclear secure 
facility in the world. The Soviets and now the Russians have spent 
about $6 billion on Yamantau Mountain. We have had two defectors from 
Yamantau Mountain; and with what they have told us, we know roughly 
what is down there. It is enormous, about the size of inside our 
Beltway with railroad tracks running in opposite directions and 
enormous rooms carved out of the rock.
  Again, it is the most nuclear secure facility in the world. The 
Russians will not tell us why they are doing it. They have just ramped 
up activity there. They have built accoutrements there that they do not 
have in their other cities, tennis courts and so forth. They cannot pay 
their military. They cannot afford $200 million for the service module 
of the space station, but this is important enough to them that they 
keep pouring millions and millions and millions of dollars into it, $6 
billion currently. Its only use is either during or postnuclear war.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, why would Russia do this? When they have 
all of these needs in their society, why would they pour all of this 
money into Yamantau Mountain? What I am told is, they are paranoid. 
They do not believe we are their friends. They are planning for a 
nuclear war. They apparently believe that it is inevitable and 
winnable, and they are going to win it with this kind of preparation. 
We have no idea what they are going to do there, but we know that they 
are building and spending a lot of money on it.
  Now, my question is, why at this time in history would we want to 
feed Russia's paranoia? Why would we want to enlarge NATO right up to 
their borders? NATO they perceive as a threat to them. For the first 
time in its history, we used them as an aggressive power in Kosovo.

                              {time}  1130

  If we want a friendship society, a goodwill society, in Europe, 
please, Mr. Speaker, call it something else. Do not call it NATO. NATO 
is very threatening to the Russians. It was set up to counter the 
Warsaw Pact. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said it 
did its job. It was very successful. The Warsaw Pact does not exist.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very unwise political move. I cannot 
understand how we could perceive that it is in our national security 
interest to enlarge NATO and feed the paranoia of the Russians when 
they continue to pour money into things like Yamantau Mountain.
  This is not a good bill. I support the rule; I vigorously oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is 
noncontroversial, but the bill itself, the bill to expand NATO and the 
foreign aid involved in it, is controversial from my viewpoint. It may 
not be controversial here in Washington, but if we go outside of 
Washington and talk to the people who pay the bills and the people who 
have to send the troops, they find this controversial. They think we 
are taken for saps as we go over and extend our sphere of influence 
throughout the world, and now extending into Eastern Europe.
  I, too, was a friend of Jerry Solomon. We came into the Congress 
together in 1978. One thing for sure that Jerry understood very clearly 
was the care that we must give to expanding our influence as well as 
sacrificing our sovereignty, because he was strongly opposed to the 
United Nations.
  As chairman of the Committee on Rules, he would permit my amendment 
to come up and at least debate the effectiveness of belonging to the 
United Nations, so I have fond memories of Jerry, especially in his 
support of my efforts to try to diminish the United Nations' influence 
and the taking away of our sovereignty.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do oppose NATO. I believe that 
it has a bad influence on what we do. We want to extend our control 
over Eastern Europe, and as has been pointed out, this can be seen as a 
threat to the Russians.
  NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take 
a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. 
They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the 
Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in 
there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, 
incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They 
had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our 
bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may

[[Page 21834]]

be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO 
that we went along with.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop and think about this, and instead 
of expanding NATO, instead of getting ready to send another $55 million 
that we are authorizing today to the Eastern European countries, we 
ought to ask: Has it really served the interests of the United States?
  Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United 
States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of 
internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the 
interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very 
negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of 
the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is 
very popular.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Seventh District of Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the bill, and I 
particularly appreciate the fact that this bill has been designated to 
honor our good friend, Jerry Solomon, who represented us so well in the 
association of NATO parliamentarians and who had made so many friends 
for America around the world, and particularly with our NATO allies.
  There is no question that NATO has been the most successful alliance 
in history. I would not want to revisit all of the issues of our 
policies in Eastern Europe today, but I think if we look back at who 
was following whose lead in what we did the last couple of years, it 
might not have been us following NATO as much as NATO following us on 
policies that were vigorously debated here on this floor.
  That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about whether we 
continue to open the doors of NATO to nations that meet the standards 
that NATO set, nations that add to the common defense of NATO, nations 
that so much want to be on this side of the curtain of freedom, if the 
curtain of freedom ever comes down again.
  Recently, at the NATO parliament meeting in Lithuania, those of us 
who represented the House of Representatives there saw people come out 
who remembered clearly not only what it had been like to live under the 
Soviet Union, but remembered what it had been like to be dominated by 
the Nazis; people who did not want to have that ever happen again; 
people who were desperate, because if they had not been in a 
concentration camp or sent out of the country, they knew somebody in 
their family that had.
  Person after person, group after group, came chanting NATO, NATO, 
NATO, with a sense of desperation; that if the line of freedom is ever 
drawn again, they know which side of that line of freedom they want to 
be on.
  This does not mean that the line of freedom has to end at the Russian 
border. In fact, meeting the right circumstance, the line of freedom 
can extend, but it does mean that those countries that are striving to 
meet the standards that NATO set, those countries that are striving to 
meet the standards that NATO set for membership that can add to the 
common defense, that are democracies today and want to ensure that 
democracy can best ensure that democracy by joining this family of 
nations and being part of NATO, by being part of the NATO parliament, 
by being part of the NATO defense structure.
  This is hugely important to the countries mentioned. All of them are 
not included in NATO as a result of anything we do, but we are just 
making the point again that that door is open to peace-loving people, 
freedom-loving people, people who honor democracy, and these countries 
are among those.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his historical perspective on what has 
happened with NATO over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the articulate statement 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). He 
spelled out, I think in some detail, why NATO continues to be very 
important to the democracies of Western Europe and to the United States 
and Canada, as well.
  Indeed, in Lithuania, we saw graphic examples and heard from people 
on the streets, at high levels of government and the people in the 
booths selling things to us why NATO was so important, why they do not 
want to come under totalitarianism again.
  In fact, I think there is strong bipartisan support for the 
continuation of NATO. The dissident voices we heard here today are 
certainly appropriate in a democracy, but I think they do not reflect 
the bipartisan recognition that NATO has been important, it is 
important today, and it will be important in the future.
  There are probably two critical institutions in Europe today which 
help ensure that this security umbrella will be over the nations of the 
former Warsaw Pact in Central and Eastern Europe and that they will be 
able to continue their movement towards democracy and a full array of 
human rights. They are, first and foremost, NATO; and secondly, the 
European Union.
  As the countries, seven of which are identified for authorization, or 
reauthorization, in this legislation move towards, or hope to 
successfully gain, membership in NATO, they are making a number of 
changes. They are embracing a full array of the features of democracy 
to meet the criteria for NATO membership, they are providing for 
transparency in their military budgets, they are providing for civilian 
control of their military, and they are providing for the kind of 
interoperability of their defense systems with those of the 19 
countries of NATO.
  It is on the basis of NATO that we were able to form a coalition that 
performed so well in the Persian Gulf, that was brought to bear after 
we had some failures from the United Nations in certain parts of the 
Balkans, and which today underlie the coalition which President Bush 
and the United States have built in our war against terrorism.
  It is not by accident that it was the other countries of NATO which 
provided the first meaningful response to a coalition against terrorism 
when they invoked Article 5, that meant that when there is an attack on 
one of its members, in this case from a foreign source on the United 
States, they said by invoking Article 5, that it is an attack on all of 
us. So this defensive alliance, 52 years of age, has taken on some new 
responsibilities for Western democracies and for the United States, in 
this case in the war against terrorism. It is a critical institution.
  As we see the other countries of Eastern and Central Europe attempt 
to secure EU membership and NATO membership, we should also note that 
NATO has created the Partnership for Peace program to permit not just 
these seven countries, but a wider array of countries, even into the 
former Soviet Union, with an opportunity to eventually move towards 
full integration with Western institutions and Western democracy 
through NATO membership.
  Indeed, the door is not shut to Russia. In fact, we have provided, 
through the North Atlantic Council, a special opportunity for Russia to 
have input into the deliberations of NATO; not anything approaching a 
veto, for certainly something we would not want to give them.
  Mr. Speaker, If we did not have NATO today we would have to create 
something like it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I not only urge support of the rule, but since time 
is limited on the debate on the bill itself, I thought it was 
appropriate to make these remarks here today with respect to the 
importance of NATO today and into the future.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill appears to be in very good shape. The rule is 
certainly acceptable to us.

[[Page 21835]]

  I think it is fitting that we call this bill the Gerald Solomon 
Freedom Consolidation Act. Mr. Solomon was chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for the few years in which I served under him. As a Democrat, and 
he was a Republican, he was tough, he was difficult, but he was a fair 
man. He never lied. He was a man of integrity. He was a good 
Representative.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his kind 
comments about Chairman Solomon.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________