AND THEN AFTER THE SPLIT, THE CZECH REPUBLIC WITH A STEADY AND
           INSPIRING HAND EVER SINCE. AND MANY OF US HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
           TO BE IN EASTERN EUROPE IN 1989 AND 1990 WHEN THESE EVENTS TOOK
           PLACE. I REMEMBER MY WIFE, BARBARA, AND I BEING IN PRAGUE WHEN
           HAVEL AFTER ELECTED WAS ABOUT TO ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY OF THAT
           NATION AND THE INSPIRATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PEOPLE OF

           PRAGUE PROTECTING THAT ELECTION AND PROTECTING HIS MOVEMENT TO
           THE CASTLE WHERE HE WOULD SERVE. AND HOW THEY FILLED THE
           STREETS STREETS, PROTECTING THAT FREE ELECTION AND PROTECTING
           THEIR DEMOCRACY. AND AFTER THE FREEDOM CAME, POLAND, HUNGARY
           AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC SIGNED ASSOCIATION AGREEMENTS WITH THE
           EUROPEAN UNION IN 1991. AND EUROPEAN UNION LEADERS DECIDED IN

           MARCH OF 198 TO CONVENE FULL ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS WITH THESE
           THREE NATIONS. POLAND HELD SEVEN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS SINCE
           1989. HUNGARY HAS HAD TWO DEMOCRATIC CHANGES OF GOVERNMENT
           SINCE 1989 IN FULLY FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. AND SINCE 1989,
           FIRST CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND THEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC HAVE HAD THREE
           FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. ALL THREE GOVERNMENTS ESTABLISHED
           CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THEIR MILITARIES AND THEIR PARLIAMENTS

           ARE INCREASINGLY ACTIVE IN OVERSEEING MILITARY BUDGETS AND
           ACTIVITY. AND, SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I'M SATISFIED WITH THE
           COMMITMENTS OF POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC TO
           DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE RULE OF LAW. AND, INDEED,
           I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD CAN DRAW INSPIRATION
           FROM THE EXTRAORDINARY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THESE THREE FORMERLY
           COMMUNIST-RULE NATIONS. NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE COST OF NATO
           ENLARGEMENT?
           IT'S PERHAPS BEEN THE MOST WRITTEN ABOUT AND THE LEAST

           UNDERSTOOD ASPECT OF NATO ENLARGEMENT. IT IS AN IMPORTANT
           SUBJECT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED CAREFULLY. PURSUANT TO
           CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION, THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SENT A
           REPORT TO CONGRESS IN FEBRUARY OF 1997 ON NATO ENLARGEMENT THAT
           INCLUDED AN ILLUSTRATIVE ESTIMATE OF THE COST IN THE RANGE OF
           $9 BILLION TO $12 BILLION OVER 13 YEARS. THE TERM

           "ILLUSTRATIVE" WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
           WHICH PREPARED THE ESTIMATE, DID NOT KNOW WHICH NATIONS OR EVEN
           HOW MANY NATIONS WOULD BE CHOSEN FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP, AND,
           THEREFORE, COULD NOT CONDUCT A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE
           ANALYSIS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A TRUE COST ESTIMATE. THAT
           REPORT ESTIMATED NOT ONLY THE COST THAT WOULD BE OCCASIONED BY
           NATO ENLARGEMENT BUT ALSO THE COSTS TO PRESENT NATO MEMBERS TO

           IMPLEMENT THE ALLIANCES NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT THAT REQUIRES
           REORIENTATION FROM A STATIC DEFENSE POSTURE SUITABLE DURING THE
           COLD WAR TO A MORE FLEXIBLE AND MOBILE SET OF CAPABILITIES TO
           RESPOND TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF THREATS. SO, THE COSTS THAT WERE
           LOOKED AT RELATED ONLY IN PART TO NATO ENLARGEMENT, WERE
           ILLUSTRATIVE AS TO THAT BASED ON NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO HOW MANY OR
           WHICH NATIONS WOULD BE ADDED, BUT ALSO INCLUDED ILLUSTRATIVE

           COSTS OF AN ENTIRELY NEW CONCEPT, A STRATEGIC CONCEPT FOR NATO,
           WHICH DIDN'T RELATE TO THE QUESTION OF NATO ENLARGEMENT AT ALL
           BUT WHICH WOULD OCCUR WHETHER OR NOT NATO WAS ENLARGED. NOW,
           THIS REPORT PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK NOTIONALLY THAT'S
           IMPOSSIBLE -- AT SOME POSSIBLE FUTURE COST BUT IT ALSO ADDED
           SOME CONFUSION SINCE IT WENT BEYOND COMMON COSTS TO NATO
           MEMBERS THAT ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF NATO ENLARGEMENT, WHICH IS

           THE REAL ISSUE THAT WE MUST DEAL WITH IN CONSIDERING THE
           ACCESSION OF POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC. THE REALLY
           RELEVANT ASPECT OF THE ADMINISTRATION COST ASSESSMENT, THE
           ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS FOR NATO MEMBERS FOR THE DIRECT COST,
           IS THE FIGURE $9 BILLION TO $12 BILLION OVER 13 YEARS. THAT
           THAT FIGURE, AGAIN, INCLUDED BOTH COSTS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
           FOR COMMON FUNDING AND THOSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BORNE BY THE
           NEW MEMBER STATES. NOW, THERE WAS A NEW COST ASSESSMENT THAT
           WAS MADE IN NOVEMBER OF 1997, AND THAT WAS MADE BY THE NATO

           STAFF. THE ASSESSMENT WAS PRODUCED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
           NATO'S MILITARY COMMITTEE AND HAS SINCE BEEN APPROVED BY THE
           NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL. IT ESTIMATES THE COSTS WHICH WILL BE
           ELIGIBLE FOR COMMON FUNDING AT $1.5 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS.
           THOSE ARE THE REAL COSTS AS ESTIMATED CAREFULLY, KNOWING WHICH
           COUNTRIES WOULD COME INTO NATO, WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR

           ACCESSION AND LOOKING AT JUST THE DIRECT COSTS OF ADDING THOSE
           COUNTRIES AND EXCLUDING OTHER COSTS WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTLY
           RELATED TO THAT ACCESSION. THE ESTIMATE, AGAIN, FOR ALL OF THE
           MEMBERS WAS $1.5 BILLION OVER TEN YEARS. THE UNITED STATES'
           SHARE WOULD BE ABOUT $400 MILLION OVER TEN YEARS. THE
           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REVIEWED THE NATO STUDY AND DETERMINED
           THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ENLARGEMENT REQUIREMENTS WAS

           THOROUGH, MILITARILY SOUND AND BASED UPON A RANGE OF REASONABLE
           CONTINGENCIES AND THE DEPARTMENT CONCURRED WITH THE NATO COST
           ASSESSMENT. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE EVALUATED THE BASIS
           FOR NATO'S COST ESTIMATE AND REVIEWED THE D.O.D.'S ASSESSMENT
           OF THAT NATO COST ESTIMATE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE APPROACH USED
           BY NATO IN DETERMINING THE ESTIMATED DIRECT ENLARGEMENT COSTS
           FOR COMMONLY FUNDED REQUIREMENTS IS REASONABLE. AND THEY ALSO

           DETERMINED THAT THE D.O.D.'S ASSESSMENT OF THE NATO COST STUDY
           WAS REASONABLE.
           
           AND, THUS, THE QUESTION IS: YIELDS THE FLOOR THERE SUCH
           DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THAT -- WHY WAS THERE SUCH DISCREPANCY
           BETWEEN THAT ORIGINAL $12 BILLION AND NATO ESTIMATE OF $1.5
           BILLION, THE ANSWER LIES IN SEVERAL FACTORS. THE NATO'S COST
           ESTIMATE INCLUDED COSTS ELIGIBLE FOR COMMON FUNDING AND THOSE
           THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BORNE BY NEW MEMBER STATES. DEDUCTING THE

           COSTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BORN BY NEW MEMBER STATES REDUCING
           THE -- REDUCES THE ADMINISTRATION'S ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH
           WAS $9 BILLION TO $12 BILLION TO $5.5 BILLION TO $7 BILLION.
           SECONDLY, THE D.O.D. ASSESSMENT WAS BASED UPON FOUR NEW NATO
           MEMBERS, NOT THE THREE NEW MEMBERS WHICH WERE ACTUALLY SELECTED
           FOR ACCESSION TO NATO. AND IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAD MADE AN
           ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS FOR THREE NEW MEMBERS, THAT WOULD HAVE
           REDUCED THE ESTIMATE TO BETWEEN $4.9 BILLION AND $6.2 BILLION.

           ADDITIONALLY, NATO ACTUALLY VISITED THE FACILITIES IN NEW
           MEMBER COUNTRIES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE UPGRADED IN ORDER TO
           EXTEND NATO'S COMMUNICATION LINKS TO NEW MEMBERS, IN ORDER TO
           CONDUCT AIR DEFENSE WHICH REFLECTS THE INTEGRATION OF NEW
           MEMBERS INTO NATO'S AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
           REINFORCEMENT RECEPTION FACILITIES WHICH REFLECT UPGRADES TO
           INFRASTRUCTURE, PARTICULARLY AIRFIELDS, TO RECEIVE NATO FORCES,
           AND IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT TRAINING AND EXERCISES. NATO FOUND
           THAT THOSE FACILITIES WERE IN BETTER SHAPE THAN THE DEPARTMENT

           OF DEFENSE HAD ASSUMED. NATO -- EXCUSE ME -- THE DEPARTMENT OF
           DEFENSE HAD NOT ACTUALLY VISITED THOSE FACILITIES. NATO STAFF
           DID. AND, IN ADDITION, NATO USED A MORE LIMITED FUNDING
           ELIGIBILITY FOR NATO COMMON FUNDING. NATO HAD MORE EMPIRICAL
           DATA AS TO ACTUAL PRICING AND THERE WERE SOME MINOR DIFFERENCES
           BETWEEN NATO AND THE UNITED STATES AS TO THE NEW MEMBERS'
           REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS -- THAT ORIGINAL

           ESTIMATE OF THE ADMINISTRATION WAS WAY OFF, AND IT WAS WAY
           HIGH. AND THE REVISED ESTIMATE, DONE BY NATO AFTER ON-SITE
           VISITS AND LOOKING ONLY AT THE DIRECT COSTS RESULTING FROM THE
           INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF NATO, THAT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED
           BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AND BY THE D.O.D. NEXT, SHOULD WE HAVE A PAUSE?
           IN THE COURSE OF THIS DEBATE, THE SENATE WILL BE DEALING WITH
           AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE ESTABLISH A THREE-YEAR PAUSE

           AFTER THE ACCESSION OF POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC
           BEFORE NATO COULD CONSIDER THE ACCESSION OF ANY OTHER NATIONS
           TO THE ALLIANCE. I'VE ALREADY CITED ARTICLE 10 OF THE NATO
           TREATY. ON JULY 8, 1997, NATO HEADS OF STATES AND GOVERNMENT,
           IN THEIR MADRID DECLARATION ON EUROATLANTIC SKOORT AND
           COOPERATION IN WHICH THEY ANNOUNCED THEIR DECISION TO INVITE

           POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC TO BEGIN ACCESSION
           TALKS, REAFFIRM THAT -- QUOTE -- "NATO REMAINS OPEN TO NEW
           MEMBERS UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY." SINCE
           ITS INCEPTION IN 1949 THE ALLIANCE HAS BEEN ENLARGED ON THREE
           SEPARATE OCCASIONS TO INCLUDE GREECE AND TURKEY IN 1952, THE
           FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IN 1955 AND SPAIN IN 1982. ALL OF
           THESE ENLARGEMENT DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE DECISION TO INVITE

           POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HAVE BEEN THE PRODUCT
           OF CAREFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE CONSIDERATION. THE ALLIANCE'S 1995
           STUDY ON NATO ENLARGEMENT SET OUT THE CRITERIA THAT WAS USED
           FOR THESE THREE NATIONS AND THAT WILL BE USED FOR ANY
           CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE. I'M
           SATISFIED WITH THE CRITERIA AND THE PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN AND
           WILL BE USED. I SEE NO REASON TO MANDATE A PASS, PARTICULARLY
           SINCE THE DESIRE TO JOIN THE ALLIANCE HAS BEEN SUCH A

           PRODUCTIVE FORCE FOR CANDIDATE NATIONS TO PROCEED OBT ROAD TO
           DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW -- ON THE ROAD TO DEMOCRACY AND
           THE RULE OF LAW AND TO REACH ACCOMMODATIONS WITH THEIR
           NEIGHBORS. GIVEN THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS THAT WAS INVOLVED IN
           NATO'S ENLARGEMENT DECISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME
           TIME BEFORE ANY NEW NATION WILL BE CHOSEN FOR ACCESSION TO
           NATO. BUT A THREE-YEAR MANDATED PAUSE COULD ACTUALLY IMPLY TOO
           MUCH. IT COULD IMPLY THAT AFTER THREE YEARS THAT WE WILL

           SUPPORT MORE FACIALS JOINING NATO. AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY
           THE RESULT OF THE PROCESS WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED. IT SEEMS TO
           ME THAT MANDATING A PAUSE IS NO MORE ILLOGICAL THAN MANDATING
           WHEN THE NEXT ROUND OF NATO ACCESSIONS SHOULD OCCUR. FURTHER
           ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THE
           CIRCUMSTANCES AND DEVELOPMENTS THAT EXIST AT THE TIME AND
           WHETHER A CANDIDATE NATION MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR NATO
           MEMBERSHIP. THAT SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED ARBITRARILY IN ADVANCE.

           BY EITHER DECIDING THAT NEW MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN
           BEFORE A CERTAIN DATE OR THAT NEW MEMBERS WILL BE TAKEN IN
           AFTER A CERTAIN DATE, NO MEMBER CAN BE ADMITTED TO NATO WITHOUT
           THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THIS SENATE. AND WE DO NOT NEED TO
           CONDITION OUR ADVICE AND CONSENT ON THE ADMISSION OF THESE
           THREE NATIONS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT FACT, THE FACT THAT WE
           HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO IS ADMITTED AND WHEN TO NATO. SO, I WOULD

           VOTE AGAINST SUCH AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THAT
           ARBITRARY THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM. MR. PRESIDENT, ANOTHER ISSUE
           THAT'S GOING TO COME UP IS MEMBERSHIP IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.
           WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DELAY THE ACCESSION OF POLAND, HUNGARY
           AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC UNTIL THEY'RE ADMITTED TO THE EUROPEAN
           UNION. AND I UNDERSTAND THE POSITIVE, MOTIVATING FORCES BEHIND
           THAT AMENDMENT, AND THERE MAY EVEN BE SOME TRUTH TO THE
           STATEMENT THAT IN THE PRESENT LOW-THREAT ENVIRONMENT, POLAND,

           HUNGARY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC HAVE A GREATER NEED FOR ECONOMIC
           STABILITY THAN FOR THE ADDED SECURITY THAT MEMBERSHIP IN THE
           NATO ALLIANCE WILL BRING. I'VE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WITH
           NUMEROUS VISITORS FROM THE THREE COUNTRIES WITH WHOM I'VE MET.
           THEY'VE ALL STATED THEIR PREFERENCE FOR JOINING NATO BEFORE
           JOINING THE EUROPEAN UNION. THEY WANT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION,
           BUT THEY WANT INTO EUROPE -- INTO NATO EVEN MORE AND THEY WANT
           IT FIRST. THEY CITE THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THEIR

           COUNTRIES UNDER FOREIGN DOMINATION. THEY STRESS THAT THEY SEEK
           A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED STATES, A RELATIONSHIP TO
           WHICH NATO BUT NOT EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP IS RELATED. WHEN
           THE EXPERTS SPEAK OF THE CONTRIBUTION THAT NATO HAS MADE OR
           THAT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY PRESENCE IN EUROPE OR THE FAR
           EAST HAS MADE, THE FIRST THING THAT IS NOTED IS THE PEACE AND
           SECURITY THAT ALLOWS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THEN OCCUR.

           NATIONS LOOK TO THEIR EXTERNAL SECURITY FIRST AND THEN TO THEIR
           ECONOMIC SECURITY. FOR WITHOUT THE FORMER, YOU CANNOT HAVE THE
           LATTER. DURING THE SENATE NATO OBSERVER GROUPS MEETING WITH
           NATO'S MILITARY COMMITTEE, I WAS STRUCK BY A STATEMENT BY ITS
           CHAIRMAN, GENERAL KLAUS NOMAN. HE MADE THE POINT THAT ONE OF
           THE MAJOR BENEFITS OF NATO
{END: 1998/03/19 TIME: 12-15 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}