Congressional Documents[Page S3687] Ms. MIKULSKI [Page S3688] Mrs. HUTCHISON Mrs. HUTCHISON Mr. SMITH EXECUTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 2314 Mr. SMITH Mr. SMITH [Page S3689] Mr. SMITH Hold Former Soviet Bloc Nations Accountable For Pledges Made on POW/MIAs [Page S3690] Mr. SMITH Mrs. HUTCHISON Mrs. HUTCHISON Mr. Smith [Page S3691] Mr. SMITH Mr. BIDEN [Page S3692] Mr. SMITH Mr. SMITH Mr. Enzi Mr. SMITH Mr. BIDEN Mr. SMITH Mr. SMITH Mr. BIDEN Mr. SMITH Mr. HAGEL [Page S3694] Mr. BIDEN Mr. WARNER Mr. HAGEL Mr. WARNER [Page S3695]
[Page: S3687]
The Senate continued with consideration of the treaty.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the expansion of NATO. And how appropriate that our friends, colleagues, and allies from the United Kingdom have joined us on the Senate floor just as they have joined us in battle and just as they have joined us in keeping the peace, and we welcome them with affection, admiration, and gratitude.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has returned to consideration of the ratification of NATO enlargement. I hope we will now have an uninterrupted debate. NATO enlargement deserves the dignity of serious consideration of this matter and to take such time as the Senate deems necessary.
Mr. President, I support NATO enlargement because it will make Europe more stable and America more secure. It means that the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will share the burden of European security. It means that future generations might not have to fight and die in a European theater.
If NATO doesn't enlarge, the Iron Curtain remains permanent and the unnatural division of Europe will live on longer than the Communist empire did in the Soviet Union. NATO will remain, as President Havel has said, an alumni club for cold war victors. It will have little relevance to the realities of the 21st century.
Mr. President, as a Polish American, I know that the Polish people did not choose to live behind the Iron Curtain. They were forced there by the Yalta agreement and by Potsdam and because they and the Baltic States and the other captive nations were sold out by the West.
Many Members of the U.S. Senate have stood long for the freeing of the captive nations. Many of our colleagues have been strong supporters of Solidarity. I, as both a Congresswoman and then as a U.S. Senator, supported the Solidarity movement. I was a strong supporter of the Solidarity movement. I was with President Ronald Reagan in a wonderful evening he held at the White House where he hosted the Polish Ambassador to the United States who had defected when Poland had imposed martial law on its own people, there sitting with President Reagan and the Ambassador from Poland who chose to defect rather than uphold where the Polish Army had been forced to go against its own people.
We pledged that we would make Poland free. And now Poland is free, but we have to make sure that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are not only free but that they are secure. That is why my support is for the expansion of NATO. My support for NATO is not based on ethnic American politics nor is it even based on the past, but it is based on the future. What will the new world order look like?
I support NATO enlargement because it will make America and Europe more stable and secure. NATO enlargement means a future in which the newly independent countries will take their rightful place as a member of Western Europe. NATO played an important part in securing this freedom. It has been the most successful alliance in history. It is an alliance that helped us win the cold war. It deterred war between the superpowers and helped prevent confrontation between member states.
But if NATO is to survive, it must adapt to the needs of a post-cold-war world, or it will become irrelevant.
NATO has evolved since it was created in 1949. We have enlarged NATO on three different occasions. Each new member strengthened NATO and increased security in Europe. No expansion of NATO is easy. No expansion of NATO is done without thought. No expansion of NATO is ever without controversy. We can only reflect what the bitter debate must have been when we voted to include Germany because of their provocative role in World War I and World War II.
Today, we are facing difficult and different threats to security. We have civil wars, as in Bosnia; we have hot spots caused by ethnic and regional tensions, as in Kosovo; we have international crimes, drugs, and terrorism; and we have the spread of weapons of mass destruction. NATO must change in order to meet these new threats. Europe's new democracies will help us meet those challenges.
The countries of Central and Eastern Europe want to help us address these new threats. How many times has the Senate discussed burdensharing in Europe--and we want others to share the burden, not only in the financial cost, but of the risk to be borne in defending democracy. How often have we in the United States complained that European countries were not willing to pay their fair share for their own defense?
Now, we have countries that are asking to share the burden. They are asking to pledge their troops and equipment for a common defense. They are asking to share the burden of peacekeeping. In fact, they are doing it right now in Bosnia, where thousands of troops from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are helping to secure the peace. Hungary has made itself available, so it is our base camp to go into Bosnia.
They have even committed to joining us and ending Iraq's chemical and biological weapon programs, which is more than can be said of some of our allies.
These countries are not asking for a handout, nor are they asking for our protection without their own ability to maintain their own defense. They are asking to be full partners in the new Europe. By transforming their countries into free-market democracies, countries that have a democracy, a free-market economy, with civilian control of the military, transparent military budgets, wow, these new democracies are ready to join NATO.
These new democracies will contribute to America's security by making NATO stronger. They are adding troops and equipment. They will provide additional strategic depth to NATO. They will also provide the will to fight for democratic values. Their history and geography make them passionate defenders of peace and democracy. They know what it means to be occupied and oppressed by tyrants, occupied and oppressed against their own will. They will put our common values into action. They will join with us in defending our national security and our values, whether it means peacekeeping in Europe or preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world.
Opponents of NATO enlargement have valid concerns, and I think we need to discuss them. First of all, opponents of enlargement point to cost. They say that NATO enlargement has a cost, and they are right. The new NATO members must modernize their military and make them compatible with NATO systems. The new NATO members have committed to pay this price.
There will also be a cost to the United States. Our funding of NATO's common budget will increase. NATO estimates that the total common budget will increase $1.5 billion over 10 years. The American share of that will be $400 million, or $40 million a year.
But what is the cost of not enlarging NATO? I believe it will be far higher. What will be the cost to European security, the cost to the new democracies of Eastern Europe, the long-term cost to America? And, most important, will the benefits of NATO enlargement outweigh the costs?
As a member of the Senate NATO Observer Group, working on a bipartisan basis, I met recently with the Foreign Ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I asked them those very questions.
The Polish Foreign Minister, Bronislaw Geremek, is a hero of the Solidarity movement. He said that Poland would feel abandoned once again by the West. He said that Poland will still pay to modernize their military. In fact, he said that the failure to include these three nations in NATO will cause them to spend more on their military budget. They also said they would form their own military alliance, which would be decidedly more anti-Russian than NATO. He went on to say that by refusing to enlarge NATO, we would give the hardliners in Russia a great victory. The antidemocratic forces in Russia would feel vindicated and proud. We would be handing them a victory that they could build on.
What would be the long-range costs to America of failing to prepare NATO for the 21st century? The cost would be instability in Europe and the increased chance of being pulled into yet another European war. And the cost of preventive security is always less than the cost of war.
I would like to discuss the benefits of enlargement, which I believe outweigh the costs. The strategic benefits of enlargement are most important. NATO enlargement will create a zone of peace and stability that does include Eastern Europe. It will extend NATO's stabilizing influence to more of Europe and reduce the chances of aggression or conflict in Eastern Europe. Enlargement will bring peace and security to Eastern Europe, just as it did for the West.
There are also economic benefits. Europe is America's largest trading partner, with $250 billion in two-way trade each year. Our new NATO partners will increase trading opportunities. They are building vibrant free-market economies. Poland's economy is growing at 6 percent, which is more rapidly than many of the others. NATO brings stability, and stability brings prosperity. We are creating a prosperity zone across Europe.
Mr. President, in the best tradition of the Senate, I could expand, but I know my colleague from Texas is waiting to speak as well. We are both involved in the supplemental. What I want to say is that the treaty ratification is one of the Senate's most fundamental duties. We are extending our Nation's commitment to collective defense. I certainly don't take this responsibility lightly. In the very best tradition of the Senate, we are addressing NATO enlargement as a national security issue, not a political issue. NATO enlargement is bipartisan, and it should be. It must be fully supported by members of both parties and the leadership of the Senate.
We have worked closely with the President and Secretary Albright. The Senate has been fully consulted at every step of the process, as has been required by our Constitution. Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, our Republican and Democratic leaders,
appointed a NATO observer group, chaired by Senator Roth, which has engaged in all aspects of discussing NATO enlargement, as well as the appropriate committees. So now we have had discussion at the committee level. Now it is time to debate this on the Senate floor.
I am proud to support NATO enlargement. By ratifying this resolution, we are marking the end of the cold war and the beginning of a new century. We are building an undivided, peaceful, and democratic Europe for the new millennium. We are laying the groundwork for a new era of peace and stability.
Mr. President, a new century is coming, a new millennium is about to be born, and I do not want the repugnant and despicable wars that characterized the 20th century to be carried into and repeated in the 21st century. That is why I believe in the expansion of NATO with these three countries. I look forward to a full and ample debate with my colleagues, Mr. President. This is a moment that I think is a long time waiting. We appreciate the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, who brought the end of the cold war, and Mr. George Bush, who was willing to defend and fight against the weapons of mass destruction. And now, under President Bill Clinton, we look forward to expanding NATO and to keeping that momentum going.
I yield the floor.
[Page: S3688]
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was going to make my floor statement, but Senator Smith and I have an amendment and we have been encouraged to go ahead and put our amendment forward. I will yield to Senator Smith for his introduction of the Smith-Hutchison amendment that deals with MIA. I yield the floor to him.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Kyl amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an executive amendment numbered 2314.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in section 3 of the resolution, insert the following:
( ) Requirement of full cooperation with united states efforts to obtain the fullest possible accounting of captured and missing united states personnel from past military conflicts or cold war incidents: Prior to the deposit of the United States instrument of ratification, the President shall certify to Congress that each of the governments of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are fully cooperating with United States efforts to obtain the fullest possible accounting of captured and missing United States personnel from past military conflicts or Cold War incidents, to include the following:
(A) facilitating full access to relevant archival material; and
(B) identifying individuals who may possess knowledge relative to captured and missing United States personnel, and encouraging such individuals to speak with United States Government officials.
[Page: S3689]
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I will be very brief in my remarks regarding this amendment. First of all, I want to compliment and commend the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her cooperation and support as we worked together to craft this amendment.
This is a very, very important amendment, which I will get into in a moment, regarding the cooperation of these new NATO nations--if they were to become NATO nations--that would require their full cooperation with the United States in order to obtain the fullest possible accounting of any military personnel missing from any of the wars, from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, to the cold war.
This amendment is supported by a number of veterans organizations--Vietnam Veterans of America, National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, MIA Families, Korean/Cold War Family Association, National League of POW/MIA families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief statement in support of this amendment by each of those organizations be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Vietnam Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, April 13, 1998.
During the current Senate debate on the expansion of NATO, Vietnam Veterans of America strongly urges the United States Senate to hold the former Soviet Bloc counties of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic accountable for their pledges of cooperation on POW/MIA archival research made to the U.S./Russia Joint Commission in July 1997.
The Joint Commission on the POW/MIA issue was established by President Bush and President Yeltsin in 1992. One of its goals was to research the military, intelligence, security, and communist party archives for relevant information on the disposition of American POWs from the Vietnam War. The Eastern Bloc countries actively supported and were allies of the communist government of North Vietnam during this conflict.
The former Soviet Bloc countries had a significant presence in Asia and were aware of communist POW policy. Membership in NATO guarantees an American military presence. Before considering expansion of NATO to include these Soviet Bloc countries, they must grant access to their archives and provide relevant information on American POW/MIA's from the Vietnam War. Vietnam Veterans of America strongly urges the United States Senate, in their current debate, to focus on the unsatisfactory follow up actions by these countries, and to delay the expansion of NATO to include the Soviet Bloc countries until they have fulfilled their previous commitments.
Vietnam Veterans of America is the nation's only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated solely to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their families. VVA's founding principle is `Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another.'
War Veterans Coalition,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
Hon. Bob Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re NATO Expansion.
Dear Senator Smith: The National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition is a federation of approx. 90 veterans membership and issue organizations dedicated to the advancement of ten goals for the benefit of veterans of these two wars. One of those goals is for full POW MIA accountability.
The primary argument in favor of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe has been said to be a means of encouraging enforcing Western, democratic norms on these former Communist countries. Under the circumstances, we do not find it at all unreasonable to also require the emptying of the closets containing defunct Communist secrets concerning the disappearance of many of our servicemen, apparently alive and in captivity at some point, from hot and cold wars fought during half a century.
We therefore endorse your rider, requiring the President to certify full co-operation by the NATO membership applicants on the POW-MIA issue that continues to haunt us.
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Burch, Jr.,
Chairman.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF FAMILIES OF AMERICAN PRISONERS AND MISSING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
Hon. Bob Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: The lack of full and open cooperation by the governments of Vietnam and Russia to help account as fully as possible for Americans still missing from the Vietnam War has prompted our support for your efforts to seek such cooperation from the governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
We recognize that the initiatives of the U.S.-Russian Commission on POW/MIA offer promise to POW/MIA families who have long awaited answers. Although less promising than through the leadership serving in Hanoi, Moscow and Pyongyang, there is increasing evidence that the countries who were a part of the former USSR have relevant knowledge about Americans still missing and unaccounted for from our nation's past military conflicts.
For this reason, the League expresses our gratitude to you and your colleagues who recognize the need to seek full cooperation from the governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Respectfully,
Ann Mills Griffiths,
Executive Director.
National Alliance of Families,
Bellevue, WA, March 16, 1998.
Re: NATO--A Resolution for Our POWs.
Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Helms: Within days, the Senate will vote to extend NATO membership to Poland, Hungry and the Czech Republic. The membership of the National Alliance of Families asks that during debate on this subject, a resolution is introduced requiring the United States to formally request that these nations release all archival information the above Countries hold on American Prisoners of War from the Korean War, The Cold War and the War in Southeast Asia.
During the Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, evidence was presented clearly showing Czech involvement with American and United Nation POWs during the Korean War. Evidence presented by the former Czech General, Jan Sejna, indicated POWs from the Vietnam War were transported to Czechoslovakia.
We do not wish to punish the present democratic nations of the former Eastern Bloc. However, we do not want to let a golden opportunity slip through our fingers. Each former Eastern block nation seeking NATO membership must be asked a series of specific questions relating to that Country's knowledge of American POWs. This mandate for questioning can only be achieved by a formal Senate Resolution.
Each former Eastern Bloc country should be asked to:
1. Search their records for the location of any Americans or former American citizens living in their country. Making said survivors available to U.S. investigators;
2. Open their archives, making all documents relating to American POWs or survivors. This should include all records of interrogations and medical experimentation; and
3. All records and documentation of the Country's involvement with American POWs on foreign soil.
These requests should be made with the understanding that no nation will be condemned or punished for involvement with American POWs or survivors.
Any nation coming forward with `live' American POWs (survivors) or information relating to POWs (or survivors) will be commended for their spirit of cooperation in this `new age' of democracy.
The Countries that once formed the Soviet Eastern Bloc, holds a wealth of information on American POWs. A resolution by the United States Senate, formally requesting this information assuring no reprisals or condemnation should encourage the cooperation of these new Democracies.
Senator, please do not let this golden opportunity to gain information about our POWs slip through our fingers.
Sincerely,
Dolores Apodaca Alfond,
National Chairperson.
Association of the Missing,
Coppell, TX, April 27, 1998.
Re expansion of NATO.
Senator Robert Smith.
Dear Senator Smith: The proposed expansion of NATO to include the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary presents a unique opportunity to gain information about the fate of the more than 10,000 American men who remain missing from the Korean, Vietnam, and Cold Wars. Although the governments involved might express the best of intentions at this stage of the admission process, experience tells us that promises made to gain advantage are often broken when the incentive no longer exists. The window of opportunity to ensure significant cooperation is open to us during the admission process, and will be lost if not seized at this time.
As you know, the United States has considerable intelligence and other information that delineates a Soviet program during the Korean, Vietnam and Cold Wars to exploit American POWs. The governments of the former East Bloc countries most certainly had information about this covert program, and some intelligence suggests they participated in the effort to some extent.
The United States would be remiss if we did not set forth a clear expectation of full and good faith cooperation on the POW/MIA issue in the proposed NATO Treaties, as a condition of membership. The nexus between a military alliance and the POW/MIA Full Accounting is both clear and appropriate. As an integral part of their membership in NATO, the three countries under consideration at this time, and all former East Bloc countries that might be considered in the future, should come forward with whatever information they might have about missing American servicemen.
Cooperation on this important issue should go without saying for these countries. If we fail to require a demonstrable level of meaningful cooperation, these countries will be justified in presuming that the United States Government really does not want to know what happened to our missing servicemen. Surely, the Senate does not want to send such an unacceptable message to these countries, to the families of our missing men, nor to the American People.
We thank you for your ongoing support for our efforts to account for American POW/MIAs.
Sincerely,
Donna D. Knox.
[Page: S3690]
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I also thank Congressman Sam Johnson, who, as many of my colleagues know, was a POW, along with Senator McCain, and others, during the Vietnam war. Congressman Johnson and I have traveled to Prague, Warsaw, and to Moscow together in search of answers, along with former Ambassador Malcolm Toon, as part of the U.S.-Russia commission to seek answers on our missing.
There is a great window of opportunity here in the old eastern bloc countries as well as Russia to get some answers as to what may have happened to these Americans. I think as we went out and searched the countryside and met in the capitals of these countries, we received some cooperation. I want to make that very clear. But, Mr. President, there is much more to be done. There are clearly answers in these archives. I think it is very important that, if we are going to say that our military--our men and women in uniform--is going to be asked at some point, if NATO expansion occurs, to shed their blood, possibly, or defend these countries, I think it behooves these countries to provide us the fullest possible accounting of any service personnel who may have crossed their borders during the time the Communists held, basically, and controlled these countries.
I wish that I could say that all follow-up action to our trip had occurred properly and that we had every satisfactory answer that we wanted, but that is not true. It is disturbing because of the reasons that I gave. At some point in the future, by having these countries part of NATO, we are going to ask Americans to face possible combat situations to defend these countries. So the least they could do is to provide us answers that they may have now of things that occurred during Communist control. It has been said by some NATO advocates that we have an opportunity to ensure the cold war never resurfaces. Yet we still can't seem to get the cooperation we need from this region to address vital questions about our missing Americans, especially from the cold war but also possibly from Korea and Vietnam. If their pledges were genuine, as I believe they were, then, frankly, I question why leaders of these countries can't convince the old cold war bureaucracies to allow us access to the archives and allow us access to individuals who could provide us answers.
We have had some cooperation. I am very grateful for that cooperation. We met with some very influential people in the governments of those three countries when I traveled there last summer. Since last summer there have been follow-up communications by our commission support staff at the Department of Defense and also by my own office with each of these nations urging them to follow through. But most important is the fact that, based on current leads available, our commission really still believes that there is relevant information, very relevant information, which likely exists in Eastern Europe, especially in the military intelligence security Communist Party archives of these three nations in question.
Again, this is a very complex situation that has developed. The Communist Party controlled these archives, controlled all of the government activities, controlled the activities of intelligence and military and security. Now we have a different government, a friendly government. But the access to those archives has not yet been provided to us. If they are friendly and we are going to bring them into NATO and defend them, then they owe us that information, pure and simple. They owe us that information. They owe us every opportunity to get and find that information wherever it may be. I regret to say we really have not had that kind of cooperation, even though we have had some very interesting meetings.
Let me just conclude on this point. We should remember and not forget that these eastern bloc countries, when they were eastern bloc countries, were allies of the North Koreans, were allies of the North Vietnamese, and the Soviets, of course, during the cold war. They had a significant presence in both North Korea and in Vietnam. They were privy to information about Communist policies toward our own American POWs. That is very important. I want to repeat that. They were privy to a lot of information about our POWs in Vietnam, our POWs in Korea, and indeed some of the missing cold war losses. This information has not yet been shared with us.
It is very important that we delve into this and find out
whether any American POWs were transferred, either stopping there permanently or transferred through any of the capitals of these countries. I want to emphasize again, this is not meant to be a hostile statement. We met with those governments, and they were very cordial and very cooperative but somewhat standoffish by basically passing the buck by saying, Well, you know those were the Communist days, and I am not sure we can dig that out.
Again, if we are asking Americans to shed their blood in the future to defend free nations, then asking them to dig into their archives a little bit is not asking too much.
I want to emphasize again and appeal to leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to follow through on commitments that were made during our visits and help us to search for American missing service personnel from the cold war, from Korea, and from Vietnam and urge my colleagues on behalf of the veterans organizations that I have mentioned, on behalf of all veterans throughout America and the families, most especially the families of those who are missing, to please join with me in continuing to push for more progress on this humanitarian issue. We can do that and, I think, make a very strong statement here on the floor by voting for this amendment.
At this point I yield the floor for the purpose of allowing my colleague, Senator Hutchison, who has been a stalwart on this issue to speak. I am very grateful to her for her support.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Smith for leading the effort on this amendment.
I want to tell you a story about how this came to be an amendment to this bill.
Pat Dunton is my constituent. She is the president of the Korean-Cold War Family Association of the Missing. Pat Dunton's father served in the Korean conflict. She has been trying to get information about her father for all of these years since the Korean war. She still gets choked up talking about not knowing where he is or what happened to him. She came to my office one day and we started talking about how hard it is not to know. We started thinking. Well, you know, maybe we could do something with the new members who have been invited into NATO because during the cold war, which is when some of the MIA incidents took place, maybe the governments of these countries who were allies with the Soviet Union, some of whom were in Korea, might be helpful in going to these families and providing the information that they might have knowledge of. I just believe that this is something that should be done. I also believe that all three of the countries being considered for NATO membership would like to help in this effort.
I went to Senator Smith, who has been the leading advocate in the Senate for not forgetting our POWs and MIAs. I said, Let's do something in the NATO agreement that would require any information to be opened to the families of POWs from any conflict. But most especially, of course, Korea is where we think these countries really might have some information that could be relevant.
I am pleased that Senator Smith decided to take the lead and work with me on this because I think it can make a difference. It calls for the full cooperation of the Governments of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in obtaining that accounting, and specifically calls for facilitating access to relevant archival material and for these Governments to identify any individuals that may possess knowledge relative to captured and missing U.S. personnel.
Mr. President, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have all thrown off the chains of Communist domination. But not so long ago and throughout the cold war their military forces and their intelligence services were closely aligned with the very governments who hold the keys to a great deal of information which may help achieve the full accounting we seek. For example, from the end of the Korean war in 1953, representatives of the Czech and Polish military were stationed inside North Korea as part of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission at Panmunjom. Their military personnel had direct contact with the North Korean military and had at times a great deal of high-level access throughout North Korea. They met with their North Korean counterparts and may well have highly relevant information on the fate of Americans who were missing during the Korean war.
We also know that their intelligence services and their military often shared information with the intelligence services and military forces of the Soviet Union and that there are those who may have direct knowledge of events involving Americans who were missing during the Vietnam war as well as the numerous Americans who disappeared during military operations in other areas during the cold war.
As new NATO allies, it is certainly reasonable to expect that they would open their archives and provide access to our officials. I have already received assurances from representatives of the Polish Government that this access would be readily granted, and I am certain that the Czechs and the Hungarians would also be eager to work with us.
I have also been contacted by family members of the missing as well as by military personnel working in the area of POW-MIA recovery, and both groups have insisted that it would be helpful to make an official statement on behalf of Congress in the form of this amendment that this is an issue of national importance.
I think the amendment is necessary and important. It sends a message to the long-suffering families often forgotten that are still seeking information about the fate of their loved ones. We must take every opportunity to demonstrate that we understand their grief and their desire to find answers and that it is reasonable to expect any new allies to also respect our legitimate desire to learn all we can about those who are missing in the service of our country. The armed forces and the intelligence services of these same countries that seek to join NATO today were once on the other side of the bitter struggle of the cold war. So they would have information, and we hope that they would agree readily to help us in giving some comfort and perhaps providing answers, that final answer, to some member of a family who has been waiting maybe not patiently but certainly with hope in their hearts that someday they would know what happened to their father or their son who has served in our military and perhaps gave his or her life in service to our country.
I think we owe them this amount of caring, this amount of assurance that we will go the extra mile to make sure they have that closure if it can possibly be given to them.
So I thank Senator Smith. I hope the Senate will adopt this amendment when we have the vote.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. Smith of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
[Page: S3691]
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to my colleagues, just 1 or 2 minutes. I wish to expound a little bit on what the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, just said in terms of the impact on families.
In the 1950s, there was a Captain Dunham who was shot down over Soviet territory--then Soviet territory--and as a result of the U.S.-Russian commission, of which Senator John Kerry and I are members, we ran an ad in the Red Star newspaper in Russia that went all over; it was read heavily by former military people, veterans of the Soviet Union. And an individual read the article about this Captain Dunham who was missing. It turned out that this individual had been at the crash site and provided us the ring of Captain Dunham, his personal ring, which came back to his family, and as a result of following that up, we were able to find Captain Dunham's remains, missing since the 1950s, and returned just 2 or 3 years ago.
So I think this is a good example of what cooperation can really produce. Sometimes what might seem like a small, insignificant fact turns into a huge issue and a great relief to
the family of a missing serviceman or woman. So this is very important, and I want to emphasize again that what this amendment does is very simple, Mr. President.
Let me just mention three things. It would require that prior to the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification, the President shall certify to Congress that each of the Governments--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--is fully cooperating with the U.S. in order to obtain the fullest possible accounting of any military personnel from the cold war, from Vietnam, or any military conflicts; that they facilitate full access to all relevant archival material; and that they would identify any individuals who may possess knowledge relative to the capture of missing personnel. That is it. That is all the amendment does.
I thank my colleagues, especially Senator Hagel, who has been waiting. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. I will be very brief. Speaking for myself and my side and I think Senator Smith of Oregon, who will say the same thing, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Let me just make a few very brief comments. I think that the applicants for NATO accession have provided cooperation, as was indicated in the U.S. efforts to locate American POWs and MIAs in the cold war.
In July of 1987, the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on POW/MIAs visited Poland; the Department of Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office visited in December of 1997. Resulting from these visits, senior Polish officials pledged to search their archives thoroughly and open all relevant information to the United States. U.S. officials met with the Polish National Security Bureau, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Intelligence Services, the Office of Central Security, Central Archives. All, in the minds at the Pentagon, are fully cooperating. I can say the same relative to the Czech Republic and with regard to Hungary.
So although I, quite frankly, do not think it is necessary, I have no objection to the amendment. And let me say to my friend from New Hampshire, all you have to be is the brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter, nephew, or niece of an MIA to understand everything the Senator says.
My mother lost her closest brother in World War II, shot down in New Guinea. They never found his body. To this day, my mother--and that was 1944--wakes up after dreaming that he has been found. To this day, he is a constant--`constant' would be an exaggeration--he is a regular source of painful memories for my mother. The idea that there is no closure, the idea that there has never been the ability to say his name was Ambrose J. Finnegan, God love him--his nickname was Bozy to everybody in my mom's family. My mother, when I was a kid, literally would wake up at night screaming from a nightmare. She would scare the hell out of us, dreaming that her brother was in the most extreme circumstance.
I do not mean in any way to suggest this is not important by saying we will accept it and that I do not think it is necessary, because it is being done, because it is true, the pain lasts. My mother just turned 80 years old. It is like yesterday for my mother.
So I appreciate what my friend from Texas and my colleague from New Hampshire are doing. Again, I do not think it is necessary, because I anticipate they will fully cooperate. But I see no problem in accepting the amendment.
[Page: S3692]
Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would like to associate myself with the words of the Senator from Delaware and just tell my colleagues, the advocates of this amendment, I support it. I believe the Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs would support it, too. These are nations that know something about prisoners of war and missing in action, gulags, and all the horrors that go with totalitarianism, and I fully expect that they would want us to accede to this.
I appreciate the Senators offering this amendment. I think it helps. And part of the reason to expand NATO is to heal these countries. Part of the healing comes from addressing issues like this. We will find they will do this with us and without any resistance to it.
I thank the Senators who are offering this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I could just respond to the Senator from Delaware for a moment, I listened to his story about the personal episode in his family. I might say, we have found in the last 4 or 5 years, aircraft--I am almost certain that we located an aircraft in New Guinea and other areas where aircraft had been lost during World War II. I think it says a lot about our own Nation that we would still send teams out there in those jungles, searching for people who were lost. Maybe at some point, maybe--I know it was your relative, I did not hear, what relative?
Mr. BIDEN. My uncle. My mother was one of five children. It was her brother and her soul mate. It is amazing how, like I said, she is 80 years old, God love her, and it is still there.
The only reason I bothered to mention it--I never mentioned it before on the floor in all the debates we had about POWs and MIAs. I compliment my colleagues in their diligence to continue to pursue accounting for POWs and MIAs, and I didn't want them to think that, because I slightly disagree with their assertion of what these three countries have done--I agree with my friend from Oregon. I think they are clearly interested in helping. If there are any countries that are fully aware, as my friend from Oregon said, it is the Hungarians and the Czechs and the Poles, who have had people dragged off to those gulags, never to be heard from again.
These democratically elected officials, now--I would be dumbfounded if they did not fully cooperate. But I understand the motivation. That is my point, to my two colleagues. I am happy, from our side, to accept the amendment, as well as my friend has indicated he is willing to accept it.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I appreciate my colleague's willingness to accept it. It seems to be the consensus of those of us who are sponsoring it, we seek a recorded vote on it because of the significance of the issue.
With that in mind, I will ask for a recorded vote at the appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Obviously that is the Senator's right. I do not challenge it. I just am reminded, I remember one time when I first got here--and I know he has been here a long time. I went up to Russell Long, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and indicated to him I wanted help on an amendment to a Finance Committee bill. Senator Long, the senior Senator and Chairman of the Finance Committee, said, `Fine.' He accepted it.
Then I thought later it would be good to have a recorded vote. I stood up and said, `I have decided I want a recorded vote.' He said, `In that case, I am against it.' We had the recorded vote and he beat me. So I learned, from my perspective anyway, that when someone accepts an amendment, I am always happy to do it.
But I understand the Senator's motivation. I will not change my position, but maybe he would reconsider whether we need the vote. But that is his judgment. I yield the floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I had great confidence that you would not do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the ratification of NATO expansion. I have had the good fortune, over almost the last year and a half that I have been in the U.S. Senate, to serve on the Committee on Foreign Relations. That has given me a unique opportunity to examine the NATO expansion protocol. I attended, start to finish, each of the eight full hearings we had in the Foreign Relations Committee on this issue. I also was appointed by the Senate Majority Leader to serve on the NATO Observer Group Task Force. I attended almost all of the 17 meetings that our distinguished colleagues from Delaware, Senator
Biden and Senator Roth, held. That does not give me a particularly unique perspective on this issue, but it gives me some grounding on understanding the complications of NATO expansion.
As I have listened to the debate the last 2 days, and in previous weeks when this Chamber debated this issue, and during committee hearings, I have come to the conclusion that, yes, a number of the questions and points raised by my colleagues are not only relevant but are important and they should be fully aired and fully debated. It is based on those observations that I have made, as I have listened to this debate, that I wish to offer some of the following points.
Aside from the obvious defense purpose of the expansion of NATO, there are other issues involved. The obvious defense purpose of expanding NATO is to help assure stability and security in Europe, all of Europe. There has been some debate on the floor about this issue, this fourth expansion--and, by the way, a not unprecedented expansion. We have expanded NATO three other times, to include West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and the third expansion was Spain and Portugal. So this would be not an unprecedented action we take, that we include three new countries. But I find interesting that there has been some reference made to `we would split Europe.' I say just the opposite, just the opposite. We would, in fact, do much to unify Europe. Why would that be? That would be because stability, security, economic development, development of democracy and market economies, would extend across the continent of Europe and no longer would there be the Iron Curtain that fell at the end of World War II. NATO expansion would help assure that.
I also find the argument interesting from the perspective of--I thought, when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, that meant something. It was beyond symbolism. It was a witness to history that authoritarian, totalitarian government does not work, under any name--Nazism, communism, it doesn't work.
Here we are, almost 10 years after the fall of communism, with the Berlin Wall, talking about, `Well, I don't know, should we do this? We might offend our Russian friends.' Certainly any important decision must factor in every dynamic in the debate and every dynamic of our national security interest--relationships, future relationships, and in this case it certainly does factor in our relationship with Russia. But, my goodness, why did we fight, for 40 years, a cold war? And we won it. Only 10 years later, to some extent, to be held hostage to what the Russians want?
You see, I don't see an awful lot of sense in that. Yes, it is important to understand the Russians. Yes, it is important to engage the Russians. But not allow Russia, or any other nation to dominate the final analysis and decisions of our Nation's security interests, nor all of the collective security interests of Europe.
There is another consequence of this that has not yet been fully developed and that is we would be helping provide role models for Central and Eastern Europe by these three new nations, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, coming into NATO, complying with--not as a handout, not as a gesture, but complying with all of the requirements established 50 years ago to belong to NATO. We just didn't invent these. They didn't just `happen.' They are the same requirements for Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary as we had for the previous three expansions of NATO.
Other nations of Central and Eastern Europe can look to these three nations as role models, for help, and not just in the national security dynamic. Let's face it, I have heard, also, a lot of talk about the European Union--why not allow these nations to be brought into the European Union first? Mr. President, you cannot separate economics here. You can't separate economic stability from military stability.
They are integrally entwined.
There is no question the world is a global community underpinned by a global economy. Of course--of course--these nations will benefit economically. And that will invent and give opportunities to other countries, and more opportunities as well. Now, this is not just--not just--a national defense issue and a security issue for the United States. This is an investment for the United States.
This is an investment because it is connected. And if we invest, yes, some money--my goodness, isn't that something? We would actually have to pay some money, not wild exaggerations that we have heard on the floor of the Senate, but some real dollars to invest, to expand the security and stability umbrella of NATO eastward.
It is an investment for us for a couple of reasons. One, it will help assure this country will not be sending its children and its grandchildren to fight another World War or a war in Europe. Democracies do not attack other democracies. Democracies do not go to war. So it is an investment in national security and peace for us.
It is also an economic investment. As these nations that had been under the yoke of Communist dictatorship for almost 50 years are now in a position to develop democracy and flourish economically as they develop their democratic governments and their freedoms, they are as well developing market economies.
What does that mean to us? That means markets, that means some stability, that means connection.
I also have found some of my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, comment about, `Well, but this President, this administration, wants to take NATO expansion beyond the boundaries of what the mission is of NATO.' I remind my colleagues on this side of the aisle, my Republican colleagues, who might have some concern about this present administration, 10 Republican and Democratic administrations have presided over America's involvement in NATO, 10 administrations, Republican and Democratic.
This debate should not get confused with the underbrush of detail or who is in the White House today. This debate is about the future and how we are preparing for the future as we go into the next century--not about Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen. They are players on the scene for a very brief time, just like 10 administrations have been on the scene, essentially for a brief time.
Missions and organizations change, believe it or not. Missions and organizations change. Times change. Dynamics change, challenges change, circumstances and situations change.
To my colleagues who say, `Well, prove to me that NATO is going to be important. Prove to me every dollar that's going in. Prove to me we need NATO,' well, as brilliant as many of my colleagues are, no one can give them that answer, you see, because no one can predict the future. But that is what NATO expansion is about. That is why we established NATO 50 years ago, because the future was uncertain and was unstable. If we did not have NATO today, we would have to invent NATO.
To those of my colleagues who say, `Well, why rush? We're rushing into this. What's so important about doing this now? This year? Next year?' I say, I suppose you could have asked that question after World War II--there was relative peace in Europe after World War II--`What's the rush?' And for every one of the previous three expansions into NATO, you could have said, `Why West Germany now? Let's wait until about 1980,' or for any of the other nations. But, my goodness, doesn't it make a little more sense to develop strong, bold, dynamic, futuristic policy now--now--when we can think clearly, when we can understand the dynamics of the issues rather than, well, let us wait for some country to be invaded and then we will show them what we are going to do? Come on, it does not work that way. It does not work that way.
Let us not squander the time we now have to plan as best we
can for a surely uncertain future.
Another dynamic that gets lost in this debate, Mr. President, is another certainty--the diffusion of power in the world. The face of this globe will not look the same in 25 years. It will not look the same because the geopolitical, economic and military power structures of the globe of this 5.2 billion-people world are changing. Like life changes, everything changes.
It is in the best interest of this country and the world for us to lead as best we can to prepare for those new challenges and to prepare for that new diffusion of power, as it will surely come, as it is coming today.
Yes; yes, Europe is only one part of that. But look at the numbers--a rather significant part. Any measurement you take of the importance of Europe, any measurement you take--people, gross domestic product, exports--and do we really believe Europe still and will still be untouched into the next century with no war, no conflict?
Who would have predicted Bosnia? Who would have foreseen that in 1990 and 1991? Kosovo. These are deadly, real examples of how fast things can come unraveled even in--even in--Europe.
Another question that is asked, and appropriately so, is our force strength. It is a very good question. Over the last 10 years, we have been asking our military to do more with less--more deployments, longer deployments. We now have a force structure, in real dollar terms--in real budget terms--that is down as low as any time since 1940. Less than 3 percent of our gross domestic product goes for our national defense. That is below dangerously low. And if we in fact are going to ask our military to take on new responsibilities, like NATO expansion, which I support, and NATO and the Persian Gulf, and a hundred other nations where we have troops, then we are going to have to pay attention to our military. And we have not been doing that.
Another debate for another time surely, Mr. President, but one that is appropriately talked about in this debate and asked because if we are going to ask our military to do more, we are going to have to pay attention to the budget and to rebuilding our military. We are soon becoming a hollow military, and that is in any measurement you wish to take. In the President's own budget for fiscal year 1999, he cuts another 25,000 uniformed men and women from the services. We cannot have it both ways. But, as I say, part of the debate should be part of that debate, but that debate should come at a different time.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. President, by saying that we have a unique opportunity, as the most dominant nation on Earth, at a most unique time in history--not a time seen probably since Rome during the Roman Empire--when one nation has so thoroughly dominated this globe.
There is a bigger question for this country and a bigger challenge that will require a bigger debate than NATO. But it is part of the debate. And that is, yes, a great nation is required to do great things, to take on great burdens, and to give great leadership. It is an awesome responsibility the United States has. And our challenge, our debate is, do we wish in fact to go into the next century as that dominant great nation and carry that great burden of leadership?
This is part of that debate.
We have an opportunity, unique in history, to help build strong democracies, help to build structures that will give more people more freedom than the history has ever known, more market economies, better standards of living, better health, less conflict, less war. That is why NATO expansion is important. It is not the only issue, maybe not the most important issue, but surely it fits into the grander debate that we will have.
New alliances are being formed, new alliances will continue to be formed in the next century. We want to be part of that. As we rely on more nations and more relationships and more alliances, in the end that will mean less burden for us, less burden for us because we are helping develop strong democratic nations with resources, with economies that can defend themselves. That is in our interest. In the end, it is in the world's interest.
That, more than any other reason, is why I strongly support NATO expansion. I ask that my colleagues in this body who are still undecided, for legitimate reasons, listen to this debate closely, because in the end this debate is about our future and what is in our best interest.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
[Page: S3694]
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is true the Delaware which touches New Jersey is owned by Delaware, but I am from Delaware. I would be proud to be from New Jersey, but I am prouder to be from Delaware.
Mr. President, I understand we are going to go to the Kyl amendment very shortly and I cosponsor and agree with the Kyl amendment. I think the manager supports the Kyl amendment, too. But while we wait for Senator Kyl to make his opening statement in support of his amendment, I would like to reiterate a point I made yesterday with Senator Smith, in the few minutes while we are waiting for Senator Kyl to come to the floor.
Yesterday there was a good deal of talk here about whether or not this expansion of NATO was good, bad or indifferent. The distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner and others, were taking issue with the expansion of NATO. I referenced why I thought the Poles thought this was in their interest because the comments were basically made that the Poles--Senator Smith of New Hampshire said we support the Poles anyway.
I made the point that that kind of promise had been made to Poland before. In 1939, France was considered to have Europe's strongest army. It had built the massive defensive fortification called the Maginot Line which was widely thought to be impregnable.
Hitler's generals warned against an attack on France. In late August of 1939, of course, came the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which--difficult though it may be to understand today--astonished the world then.
Little more than a week later, on September 1, 1939, Hitler's forces launched a surprise attack on Poland. Here we come to two critical points.
First, Great Britain and France had cobbled together an alliance with Poland earlier that year after Germany had annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia.
But that last-minute alliance, of course, can in no way be compared to today's powerful integrated military command of NATO. France and Britain had no capability to project forces eastward to defend the Poles. Furthermore, Poland was then ruled by authoritarian colonels, while Britain and France were democracies. Therefore, appeasers could and did proclaim that they would not `die for Danzig.'
Hitler saw all this and correctly anticipated that France and Britain would not actively oppose his attack on Poland. And they didn't.
Secondly, Hitler's generals needed the attack on Poland to perfect their new tactic which was dubbed the `Blitzkrieg' or `lightning war.' The panzer attack on the Polish cavalry, as was
pointed out yesterday, an incredible undertaking where Poles on horses were taking on armored divisions of the German Army, which the Senator from Virginia recalled earlier in the debate, was a metaphor for the effectiveness of the German's new kind of rapid, mobile warfare.
I said yesterday that France and Britain, after formally declaring war on Germany September 3, 1939, did nothing. In fact, Mr. President, for more than 8 months nothing happened on the Franco-German frontier. Commentators labeled this the `phony war,' a term which students of history will call and readily recall.
Meanwhile, after carving up Poland with Stalin, the Germans were freed to redeploy offensive combat units for use in the West. On May 10, 1940, Hitler invaded France and the Low Countries using the Blitzkrieg tactics perfected against the Poles, now against France. Going through Belgium and Holland, the Germans simply bypassed the vaunted Maginot Line, and soon they were in Paris.
So I repeat, Hitler's road to France went through Poland. We should ask ourselves what lessons can be learned from this sad tale and acknowledge Poland is east of Germany. How did it get to France? Had they not gone into Poland first they would not, in all probability, have been nearly as successful as they were in 1940. The road to France was through Poland.
First, the lesson we should learn from this sad tale is the alliance only means something if it has a deeper purpose. Today, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are democracies with Western values--not as Poland was then, a very different country. By the way, only extreme isolationists, I submit, would repeat a `I won't die for Danzig' slogan in 1998.
Second, the alliance must have military muscle to back up a paper agreement. NATO clearly has the military structure in force to make collective defense credible.
The third lesson, is NATO, through its Partnership for Peace Program, is actively cooperating with non-NATO countries, including Russia, to lessen tensions and make future conflicts highly unlikely.
So for all these reasons, Mr. President, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, passionately want to become members of NATO. All three countries have successfully completed a demanding set of reforms in order to qualify.
History need not repeat itself, Mr. President. But history is always instructive. That is why I mention the connection between Poland and France in 1939 and 1940. I hope this explanation is helpful to my colleagues. I hope we keep it in mind.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I might engage our distinguished colleague, who just presented his views, in a bit of a colloquy.
First, I ask my colleague, did he make the statement that NATO is for the defense of all of Europe, or some broad, sweeping statement to that effect?
Mr. HAGEL. No, I didn't say it is for all of Europe. I said we would have a Europe, as we expand NATO eastward, that gives Europe an opportunity from east to west, all of Europe, to be democratic, opportunity to develop market economies, the potential to be a free continent, and that NATO could help do that.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I am just going back to read the charter, article V, and this is the heart and soul of NATO.
It says that 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, and consequently they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense, recognized by article V of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including use of armed force to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Now, it was very clear when this was written that we envisioned the Soviet Union as the threat. That was the purpose of it. And now with the demise of the Soviet Union and the threats now being fractured into many places and of many types, we are trying to determine what is the future mission of NATO.
One of my great regrets is that we are proceeding with this matter of including three new states at a time when NATO itself has not determined exactly what is to be the mission subsequent to the 1991 statement to that effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator of the previous order.
[Page: S3695]