WHEN THE RESOLUTION PROMISCUOUSLY OPENS THE DOOR TO NATO
           MILITARY ACTIONS ALMOST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD." NOW TO CHANGE
           THE NATURE OF A TREATY WITHOUT ASKING THE SENATE TO RAT NIGH
           THE CHANGE OR TO DO IT WITHOUT DEBATING IT, TO DO IT SORT OF
           PROMISCUOUSLY AS "THE NEW YORK TIMES" SUGGESTS, IS A DANGEROUS
           THING. IT'S AN INAPPROPRIATE THING. AND I HAVE RAISED THIS

           ISSUE -- I RAISED IT BEFORE "THE NEW YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL, BUT
           I'M VERY PLEASED THAT THEY WOULD SAY THIS -- WHAT THEY CALL THE
           STARTLING EXPANSION OF NATO'S LICENSE TO CONDUCT MILITARY
           OPERATIONS. I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU CAN EXPAND SUBSTANTIALLY A
           TREATY'S LICENSE TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS WITHOUT
           CONSULTING THE SENATE -- OR SHOULDN'T. THEY SAID, IT HE DEMANDS
           EXTENSIVE DEBATE. AND SO I PROPOSE THAT WE DEBATE IT AND I

           PROPOSE THAT WE CURTAIL THIS EXPANSIVE EXTENSION OF THE ABILITY
           OF THE NATO ALLIANCE TO BE INVOLVED AROUND THE WORLD. AND
           FRANKLY I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
           INSTEAD OF PROVIDING EXTENSIVE DEBATE IN THIS AREA IN WHICH THE
           SENATE HAS BEEN LARGELY IGNORED BY AN ADMINISTRATION WHICH,
           THROUGH TREATY-CREEP -- JUST EXPANDING THEIR OPERATIONS -- WILL

           CONVERT NATO FROM A DEFENSIVE TERRITORIAL OPPOSE REAGAN
           ADMINISTRATION SO THAT THE INTEREST OF NEIGH HE TOW OPERATIONS
           CAN BE PURSUED AROUND THE GLOBE WITH INTERNATIONAL DEPLOYMENTS
           OF NATO FORCES, AS OPPOSED TO BEING LIMITED TO DEFENDING THE
           NATO TERRITORY, THE SECURITY OF NATO NATIONS AND THE POLITICAL
           INDEPENDENCE OF NATO NATIONS. "THE NEW YORK TIMES" PROPERLY
           SAYS, THIS DEMANDS EXTENSIVE DEBATE, AND I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT
           THE SENATE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD WALK AWAY FROM THE OBLIGATION
           OF THE SENATE TO OVERSEE THE RATIFICATION OF ANY REAL CHANGE IN

           A TREATY. WE WOULD WALK AWAY FROM IT AND WE WOULD DO IT BY
           VIRTUE OF SAYING, IT DOESN'T MERIT ANY DEBATE AT ALL BECAUSE
           RATHER THAN ALLOW THIS AMENDMENT TO BE DEBATED, THE SENATE
           CHOSE SIMPLY TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT. IT ISN'T EVERY DAY THAT I
           AGREE WITH "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AND ITS EDITORIAL. BUT I THINK
           IT'S PRETTY CLEAR HERE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST TAKE A FEW
           MINUTES, AND I WOULD USE SOME OF THESE CHARTS, TO INDICATE THE

           MISSED OPPORTUNITY OF THE SENATE HERE TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT
           WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE MISSION OF NATO, AND IT IS FOR THAT
           REASON THAT I WILL -- AND I INTEND TO VOTE AGAINST THE
           RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY. I THINK THAT REASON ALONE -- THERE
           MAY BE OTHER REASONS, AND I WOULDN'T SAY THAT -- BUT THIS
           PROVIDES A TREMENDOUS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO NATO.
           LET ME JUST REFER THE SENATE TO THE STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PERRY,

           THE IMMEDIATE PAST U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WHEN THE NATO
           TREATY WAS ARGUED FOR EXPANSION AND ENLARGEMENT, HE WAS ONE OF
           THE ARCHITECTS OF THE TREATY EXPANSION THAT'S BEFORE US. HERE'S
           WHAT HE SAYS. "THE ORIGINAL MISSION OF NATO -- DETERRING AN
           ATTACK FROM THE SOVIET UNION -- IS OBVIOUSLY NO LONGER
           RELEVANT. THE ORIGINAL GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF NATO RESPONSIBILITY
           IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT. THE ORIGINAL MILITARY STRUCTURE OF

           NATO IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE... THE NEW MISSIONS OF NATO" --
           AND YOU KNOW, THIS DEBATE HASN'T BEEN ABOUT NEW MISSIONS. THIS
           DEBATE HAS BEEN ABOUT THREE NEW COUNTRIES. BUR HERE THE
           ARCHITECT OF THE EXPANSION SAID "THE NEW MISSIONS OF NATO
           SHOULD BE PREVENTIVE DEFENSE -- CREATING THE CONDITIONS OF
           PEACE IN EUROPE... THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF NATO INTERESTS
           SHOULD BE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD" -- THAT MEANS THAT THE AM BIT
           OF DEPLOYMENT, THE ARENA FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF NATO TROOPS,
           INCLUDING YOUNG MEN APEDZ WOMEN FROM THE UNITED STATES, IS

           ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I THINK BEFORE WE MAKE THAT KIND OF
           CHANGE, WE OUGHT TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY. NO WONDER "THE NEW
           YORK TIMES" SAYS "THAT STARTLING EXPANSION OF NATO'S LICENSE TO
           CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEMANDS EXTENSIVE DEBATE." I
           SHUDDER TO THINK THAT WE CONSIDER TABLING THE MOTION, EXTENSIVE
           DEBATE. BUT HERE'S WHAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD TO SAY.
           SECRETARY ALBRIGHT, QUOTE, ACCORDING TO "THE WASHINGTON POST,"

           "ALSO HAS URGED THAT AN EXPANDING NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
           ORGANIZATION MUST EXTEND ITS GEOGRAPHIC REACH BEYOND THE
           EUROPEAN CONTINENT AND EVOLVE INTO A 'FORCE FOR PEACE FROM THE
           MIDDLE EAST TO CENTRAL AFRICA.'" ALL OF US WANT TO SEE PEACE
           ALL AROUND THE WORLD. WE ALL WANT PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. WE
           ALL WANT PEACE IN CENTRAL AFRICA. BUT IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN

           EVOLVING A TREATY OF JUST SIMPLY CHANGE G# A TREATY BY
           TREATY-CREEP, LETTING IT EXPAND ON ITS OWN, RATHER THAN HAVE A
           REAL DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED
           STATES AND NATO IN MAINTAINING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND
           CENTRAL AFRICA AND CHANGING THE MISSION OF NATO FROM THE
           DEFENSE OF THE NATO TERRITORY TO THE DEFENSE OF CENTRAL AFRICA
           OR TO THE DEFENSE OF THE MIDDLE EAST, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
           THAT MERITS DISCUSSION. IT'S SAD THAT THE SENATE OF THE UNITED

           STATES DECIDED TO TURN ITS BACK FROM THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION
           AND DECIDED THAT IT WOULD TABLE THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION. THIS
           IS SERIOUS WHETHER WE ARE HE EA GOING TO BE SENDING YOUNG MEN
           AND WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO PERHAPS STAIN THE
           SOIL OF AFRICA UNDER SOME NATO MISSION WITH ITS INTERNATIONAL
           POLICING OPERATION NOT ENVIESAGED IN THE NATO TREATY NEVER
           BEFORE THOUGHT A APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE NATO TREATY WAS A
           DEFENSE OF TERRITORY TREATY, DEFENDING THE TERRITORY OF THE

           MEMBER NATIONS. AND NOW BY EXPANSION THROUGH PRESS RELEASE AND
           SPEECH, SECRETARY OF STATE SAYS WE'RE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN
           CENTRAL AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST IN WAYS WE HADN'T EVER
           ANTICIPATED. THIS TREATY IS GROWING AND IF WE AUTHORIZE GROWTH
           BY PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT AND POLICY OF AN ADMINISTRATION,
           WHAT'S THE VALUE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN CONFIRMING
           TREATIES, IN RATIFYING TREATIES?
           IT WOULD JUST TAKE A SINGLE TREATY THAT ANY ADMINISTRATION THEN

           COULD EVOLVE INTO BHFER IT CHOSE. I THINK WE OUGHT TO THINK
           SERIOUSLY ABOUT ALLOWING AN ORGANIZATION, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
           MILITARY COLLECTIVE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE
           WORLD, TO BE SIMPLY EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT WAS
           NEVER INTENDED, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NEVER
           INTENDED, LET ME RE REFER TO YOU THE STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM
           CONNALLY. TOM CONNALLY IS SNOT ONE OF OUR CONTEMPORARIES BUT
           WAS A SENATOR, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN
           THE YEAR 1949 WHEN THE NATO ALLIANCE FIRST CAME INTO EXISTENCE.

           HERE'S WHAT TOM CONNOLLY SAID. "LET US NOT FORGET" -- YOU A
           ASOME WORDS BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE IN THE -- AWESOME WORDS
           BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF FORGETTING -- "THAT
           THIS TREATY IS LIMITED IN SCOPE." WAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE
           NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION'S MEMBER STATES AND NOW
           WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
           BEYOND EUROPE TO CENTRAL AFRICA. "THIS TREATY IS LIMITED IN
           SCOPE. I QUOTE AGAIN SENATOR TOM CONNALLY. "ITS MAIN PURPOSE IS

           TO MAINTAIN THES PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC AREA.
           WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO STRETCH ITS TERMS TO COVER THE ENTIRE
           GLOBE." WELL, THE ELASTICITY OF STRETCHED TREATIES HAS REACHED
           NEW LIMITS OR PERHAPS FOUND NO LIMITS IN WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO
           DO HERE TODAY. THE SUGGESTION OF "THE NEW YORK TIMES" THAT THIS
           KIND OF EXPANSION, THIS PROMISCUOUS OPENING OF THE DOOR TO
           MILITARY DEPLOYMENTS AROUND THE WORLD DOESN'T MERIT DISCUSSION
           AT ALL. IT MERITED TABLING. THAT'S A SAD DAY. A GLOBAL NATO?

           THAT'S NOT WHAT TOM CONNALLY THOUGHT WE HAD. AS A MATTER OF
           FACT, NATO'S FIRST STRATEGIC CONCEPT REALLY FOCUSED ON TWO
           THINGS -- DEFENSE PLANNING LIMITED TO THE DEFENSE OF THE TREATY
           AREA AND NATO MILITARY AUTHORITIES HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY OR
           AUTHORITY EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO INCIDENTS WHICH ARE COVERED BY
           ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY. THE DEFENSIVE
           AREA TREATY. IT WANG TO BE SOMETHING THE TROOPS OF WHICH COULD

           BE DEPLOYED LIKE A MINI UNITED NATIONS WITH A STANDING ARMY
           WITH HOT SPOTS AROUND THE GLOBE FOR SO-CALLED INTERNATIONAL
           POLICING OR SO-CALLED PEACEKEEPING. IT WAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT
           DEFENDED THE NATO NATIONS AND TO CHANGE THAT I THOUGHT IT MUST
           BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CHANGE A TREATY LIKE THIS TO COME
           BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO SEEK RATIFICATION. HOWEVER,
           THESE STRATEGIC CONCEPTS OF THE PAST HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY

           THE STRATEGIC CONCEPT IN 1991. AND HERE INSTEAD OF HAVING THE
           DEFENSE OF TERRITORY AS BEING PRIMARY, WE FIND "TO PROVIDE ONE
           OF THE INDISPENSABLE FOUNDATIONS FOR A STABLE SECURITY
           ENVIRONMENT IN EUROPE..." ALL OF EUROPE THIS TIME; WE'RE BEYOND
           THE NATO NATIONS. "IN WHICH NO COUNTRY WOULD BE ABLE TO
           INTIMIDATE OR COERCE ANY EUROPEAN NATION" -- TREATY
           TREATY-CREEP. WE'VE GONE FROM THE MEMBER NATIONS TO THE

           EUROPEAN CONTINENT AS A WHOLE -- "OR TO IMPOSE HEGEMONN THROUGH
           THE THREAT OR USE OF FORCE." TALK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO DEPLOY
           TROOPS ALL THROUGH EUROPE -- AND WE'VE SEEN THAT OUT-OF-AREA
           DEPLOYMENT PLOYMENTS BECOME THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE NO
           ALLIANCE. NUMBER TWO, "TO SERVE, AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 4
           OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY, AS A TRANS-ATLANTIC FORUM FOR
           ALLIED CONSULTATIONS ON ANY ISSUES THAT AFFECT THEIR VITAL
           INTERESTS," OH-OH -- WE'VE VED FROM THE DEFENSIVE TERRITORY TO

           THE DEFENSIVE SECURITY OF THE NATIONS TO THE INTEGRITY OF VITAL
           NATIONS TO VITAL INTERESTS. I SUPPOSE THAT COULD INCLUDE TRADE
           INTERESTS OUSH INTERESTS IN HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS OR INTERESTS
           IN CULTURAL EXCHANGES EXCHANGES. WE FIND OURSELVES WITH A REAL
           POTENTIAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF THIS TREATY. ALL OF A SUDDEN,
           THE COLLECTIVE DEFENSE OF THE TERRITORY OF THE NATO NATIONS IS
           NO LONGER THE PRIME TASK, ACCORDING TO THE STRATEGIC CONCEPTS
           OF 1991. NO, WHERE DO WE FIND THE COLLECTIVE DEFENSE?

           WE FIND THEM DOWN IN THREE AND FOUR. THEY'VE BEEN PLACED AT THE
           BOTTOM OF THE LIST. THERE IS TEA A NEW AGENERAL SDA FOR NATO
           NATIONS. NOT THE DEFENSE OF TERRITORY. IT'S THE DEFENSE OF
           VITAL INTERESTS. NO WONDER THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DEPLOYING
           TROOPS IN AFRICA, IN INTERNATIONAL POLICING OPERATIONS. NO
           WONDER SECRETARY PAREY FAUKED ABOUT DEPLOYING TROOPS --
           SECRETARY PERRY TALKED ABOUT DEPLOYING TROOPS AROUND THE GLOBE.
           THE NATO NATIONS COULD HAVE INTERESTS AS FAR AS WA AS WHO KNOWS WHERE?
           IT MAY BE THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE THING. I THINK WHEN "THE

           NEW YORK TIMES" SAID "THIS DEMANDS EXTENSIVE DEBATE," THEY
           WEREN'T SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD
           THING. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD THING, BUT IT SAID THAT WE
           SHOULDN'T AT LEAST DO THIS. WITHOUT LOOKING CAREFULLY AT IT.
           AND WHEN THE TIME CAME THIS EVENING TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THIS,
           WE FOUND THE SENATE SAYING, WE'LL TABLE IT. WE WON'T CONSIDER
           IT. AND AS WE ALL KNOW HERE, A MOTION TO TABLE CUTS OFF DEBATE.
           IT DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR DEBATE. LET ME JUST SAY THAT, WHEN THE

           TREATY WAS ENTERED INTO, IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE
           INTEREST AREA WAS. AND HERE'S JUST FROM ARTICLE 6 6, AND IT
           DEFINES WHEN THE TERRITORY WAS TO BE DEFENDED. "ANY OF THE
           PARTIES IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA, ON THE ALGERIAN DEPARTMENTS
           OF FRANCE, ON THE TERRITORY OF TURKEY OR ON THE ISLANDS UNDER
           THE JURISDICTION OF ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC
           AREA NORTH OF THE TOPIC -- TROP TROPIC OF CANCER." SOUNDS LIKE

           A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A DEED TO THE HOUSE. IT'S SPECIFIC. IT'S
           PARTICULAR. DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU DEPLOY RESOURCES ALL AROUND
           THE GLOBE TO PROTECT INTERESTS. IT SAYS THAT RESOURCES ARE TO
           BE USED TO DEFEND TERRITORY. WE'VE SEEN THIS CHANGE AND IT'S
           REFLECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. A POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS
           
           THIS: THAT WHEN YOU CHANGE THE NATURE OF AN INSTITUTION, YOU
           HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, AT LEAST AS MEMBERS OF THE UNITED

           STATES, TO DO SO CAREFULLY. AND WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE DEBATE ON
           THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. WE SIMPLY HAD A MOTION TO TABLE THE
           MOMENT -- THE AMENDMENT IN HASTE TO MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS.
           HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CUT DEFENSE AND YOU START THINKING
           ABOUT GLOBAL DEPLOYMENTS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I FEAR IS
           THAT THE SAME PROBLEM THAT HAS ATTENDED OUR OWN DEPLOYMENT OF
           OUR OWN ARMED FORCES AROUND THE WORLD IN PEACEKEEPING AND
           POLICING OPERATIONS COULD HAPPEN TO NATO, AND, YOU KNOW, OUR

           ARMED FORCES ARE THREATENSED BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS
           WILLINGNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO DEPLOY BUT NOT MUCH
           WILLINGNESS TO FUND. SO WE CUT THE FUNDING AND CUT THE FUNDING
           AND CUT THE FUNDING AND WE KEEP SENDING MORE TROOPS, MORE
           DIFFERENT PLACES AND AS YOU DO THAT YOU WONDER WHETHER THE
           RESOURCE THAT'S DEVOTED TO THE MILITARY AND DEFENSE OF THIS
           COUNTRY IS BEING IMPAIRED. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE
           INSTANCES WHERE IT IS. YOU KNOW, POLAND, HUNGARY AND THE KHECT
           REPUBLIC COMPRISE 301
{END: 1998/04/30 TIME: 21-15 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}