NOT NECESSARILY OF RUSSIAN BEING. WELL I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT
           WHAT COUNTRIES IN THIS REGION HAVE ENDURED. LAST YEAR I
           ATTENDED THE DEDICATION OF THE NATIONAL CZECHOSLOVAK AND SLOVAK
           MUSEUM IN CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. IT IS INTERESTING. I WAS THERE
           WERE PRESIDENT CLIN ON AND AMBASSADOR ALBRIGHT WHO WAS THEN
           AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS. PRESIDENT HAVEL. CZECH
           REPUBLIC AND PRESIDENT KOVA OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVAKIA. AGAIN
           THESE PEOPLE OF THESE NATION VS. SHOWN A COMMITMENT AND

           RESILIENCE TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS DURING ECONOMIC AND
           POLITICAL TRANSITION. THEY'RE WORKING IN CONCERT WITH A
           COMMUNITY OF NATIONS IN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN BOSNIA IN
           IRAQ ALSO. AND I WANT TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE THEIR EFFORTS.
           THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT IS THAT A REASON TO EXPAND NATO
           NATO?
           I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE VEHICLE. THAT
           WE CAN USE TO GET THE GOALS OF SECURITY, STABILITY, POLITICAL,

           ECONOMIC INTEGRATION WITH THE WERXFT SOCKED BY THESE
           NEWLY-FREED COUNTRIES. I'M REALLY WORRIED THAT WE'RE BUYING
           INTO A MENTALITY THAT HAS ITS ROOTS INTO THE COLD WAR AND NOT A
           MENTALITY THAT'S LOOKING AHEAD TO THE NEXT CENTURY. IT IS TRUE
           THAT EUROPE HAS SUSTAINED DECADES AND ALMOST A CENTURY OF
           WARFARE AND INVASIONS, DOMINATION, OPPRESSION BY THE PEOPLE OF
           EASTERN EUROPE. THIS APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY WOULD BE

           APPROPRIATE IF THE WORLD CLIMATE WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT IT WAS,
           SAY, BEFORE WORLD WAR II. BUT THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. TO THOSE
           WHO SAY THAT, WELL, WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER CROSS-BORDER INVASION
           BY A COUNTRY IN EUROPE AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY, EVEN THE
           ADMINISTRATION ADMITS THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS
           WOULDN'T HAPPEN FOR YEARS. IT WOULD TAKE YEARS FOR ANYTHING
           LIKE THIS TO DEVELOP. YOU'RE NOT ABOUT TO SEE ANY HEADLINES

           EXCLAIMING THAT RUSSIAN TROOPS ARE MARCHING TOWARDS POLAND OR
           CZECHOSLOVAKIA. THE CZARS ARE GONE. THE THIRD REICH IS GONE.
           GERMANY IS UNITED AS A DEMOCRACY. AGAIN, WE NEED TO REORNTS OUR
           MENTALITY TO THE RELATES -- TO THE REALITIES OF THE 21ST
           TRIWHERE THE SECURITY THREATS ARE NOT CZARS AND HIT LETTERS AND
           PEOPLE LIKE THAT BUT ARE -- AND HITLERS AND PEOPLE LIKE THAT
           BUT ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS. AND AS WE
           HAVE SEEN IN EUROPE, INTERNAL ETHNIC CLASHES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE
           SECURITY THREAT OF MOST CONCERN TO EUROPE NOW IS BOSNIA AND

           KOSOVO KOSOVO. THERE IS ALSO THE SO-CALLED NONTRADITIONAL
           THREAT -- TERRORISTS, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. AND
           AGAIN WE NEED TO CONSIDER, IS NATO THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH
           THESE CHALLENGES?
           BUT MY PRIMARY CONCERN NOW -- AND WITH THIS AMENDMENT -- IS THE
           COST. IN FEBRUARY OF 1997, THE ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED TOTAL
           COSTS OF BETWEEN TSDS 27 BILLION TO $35 BILLION, OF WHICH THE
           U.S. SHARE WOULD BE $1.5 BILLION TO $2 BILLION. IN DECEMBER,

           NATO RELEASED THEIR OWN STUDY WITH THE ASTONISHINGLY LOW TOTAL
           COST ESTIMATE OF $1.5 BILLION. WELL THEN THE CLINTON
           ADMINISTRATION REVISED THEIR INITIAL PROJECTIONS DOWN TO
           REFLECT THE THAT I FOE -- THE NATO ESTIMATE. SOME WOULD ARGUE
           THAT COMPARING THESE NUMBERS IS LIKE COMPARING APPLES AND
           ORANGES. I'VE HEARD THAT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS
           AND SCENARIOS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS AS TO WHAT ACTIONS

           NATO WILL TAKE IN THE FUTURE AND AT WHAT COST. I HAVE A CHART
           HERE THAT SHOWS BASICALLY THE VARYING COST ESTIMATES. AND WE
           CAN GET AN IDEA OF JUST HOW WIDELY DIVERGENT THEY ARE. NEIGH
           TOW CAME IN AT $1.5 BILLION. -- NATO CAME IN AT $1.5 BILLION.
           THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION INITIALLY CAME IN LAST YEAR -- A
           YEAR AGO -- AT $27 BILLION TO $35 BILLION. NOW THE
           ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT'S $1.5 BILLION. THEY JUST PICKED UP THE

           NATO ESTIMATE. C.B.O. HAS GIVEN US A RANGE OF $21 BILLION TO
           $125 BILLION. THE RAND CORPORATION SAYS IT IS $10 BILLION TO
           $110 BILLION. AS I SAID, THE FIRST CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SAID
           IT WAS $27 BILLION TO $35 BILLION. NOW THEY'RE DOWN TO $1.5
           BILLION. WHERE IS IT?
           HOW MUCH OF THIS WILL THE U.S. TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PICK UP?

           THE G.A.O. ISSUED A REPORT LATE LAST FALL, THE TITLE OF WHICH
           EXPLAINS MY CONCERNS AND THE REASON FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
           
           IF SAYS "NATO ENLARGEMENT: COST COMPLICATIONS FOR THE -- COST
           IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES REMAIN UNCLEAR." MUCH OF THE
           UNCERTAINTY IS BECAUSE "IT WILL NOT BE UNTIL JUNE OF 1998 THAT
           NATO WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR HOW MUCH TO INCREASE
           THE COMMON BUDGETS, WHICH WOULD THEN BE SHARED AMONG CURRENT
           AND NEW MEMBERS. UNTIL THIS HAS BEEN DONE, THE IMPLICATIONS FOR

           THE U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATO'S COMMON BUDGETS WILL BE
           UNCLEAR." NOW AGAIN, THIS IS ONE REASON WHY I AND SEVERAL OTHER
           SENATORS ASKED FOR A DELAY IN VOTING ON NATO EXPANSION. I FELT
           -- AND SOME OTHERS FELT -- THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DELAYED THIS
           UNTIL THIS SUMMER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS NATO ESTIMATE
           UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE OF THIS YEAR. SO WHY SHOULD WE BE VOTING ON
           A BLANK CHECK FOR THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER UNTIL WE HAVE THE DATA?
           WHAT IS THE RUSH?

           WHY COULDN'T WE BAIT UNTIL -- WHY COULDN'T WE WAIT UNTIL THIS
           SUMMER WHEN WE GET THE NATO DECISIONS ON HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO
           INCREASE THEIR COMMON BUDGETS?
           NOW, THE SAME G.A.O. REPORT WENT ON TO DISCUSS THE FINANCING
           FOR COMMONLY-FUNDED ITEMS, SUCH AS THE NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE TO
           SEND REINFORCEMENTS TO NEW ALLIES IN TIMES OF CRISIS,
           COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, OR INTEROPERABILITY WITH THE NATO AIR
           DEFENSE SYSTEM. NONE HAS BEEN AGREED UPON YET. NONE OF THOSE

           HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON YET. AGAIN, FROM THE G.A.O. REPORT,
           WHETHER THEY WILL BE FINANCED WITHIN EXISTING BUDGETS OR BY
           INCREASING THE SIZE OF NATO'S COMMON BUDGETS WILL NOT BE
           DETERMINED UNTIL JUNE OF 1998. END OF QUOTE. NOW, THAT'S FROM
           THE G.A.O. ACCOUNT. AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE MANAGERS OF THE
           BILL WOULD ENGAGE WITH US IN DISCUSSING WHY WE WOULD GO AHEAD
           WITH THIS UNTIL WE HAVE THIS DATA THAT NATO WILL COME UP WITH

           IN JUNE OF 1998. SO THAT'S A MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE RIGHT
           THERE. NOW, ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE WE'RE MISS SOMETHING
           HOW NEW MEMBERS ARE TO ADDRESS THEIR MILITARY SHORTFALLS. THE
           COUNTRY'S FORCE GOALS WILL NOT BE SET, AGAIN, UNTIL THIS
           SPRING. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE WITHOUT A PLAN TO ADDRESS THE
           FORCE GOALS AND THE PRICE TAG ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WELL, AGAIN,
           I AND OTHERS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE SIGNING THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS'

           NAMES TO A POTENTIALLY BALLOONING BLANK CHECK. SO THAT'S THE
           SECOND PART OF THIS PUZZLE, I BELIEVE, THAT'S MISSING. THE
           G.A.O. CONCLUDED THAT WHILE D.O.D.'S KEY ASSUMPTIONS WERE
           REASONABLE, THEY ARE "COST -- THEIR "COST ESTIMATES ARE

           SPECULATIVE." IT'S NOT JUST THE COUNTRIES INVITED TO JOIN. WHAT
           ABOUT THE COSTS FOR ASSISTANCE AND OTHER BILATERAL ASSISTANCE
           FOR THE OTHER COUNTRIES NOT INVITED TO JOIN IN JULY OF 1997.
           

           A SENATOR: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?
           
           

           MR. HARKIN: WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO YIELD.
           

           MR. BIDEN: WOULD THE SENATOR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE EXAMPLE HE
           JUST GAVE IS NOT -- HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY COMMITMENT
           THAT'S BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE EXPANSION OF NATO NOW?
           IT'S UNRELATED. WE MAY OR MAY NOT, THROUGH THE PROGRAM WHICH
           THE OPPONENTS OF EXPANSION CONSTANTLY POINT TO -- THE
           PARTNERSHIP OF PEACE, AS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE STUCK WITH -- WE
           MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT. BUT PASSAGE OF EXPANSION OF NATO FOR
           THESE THREE COUNTRIES IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE POINT OF WHON

           WHETHER OR NOT WE GIVE ASSISTANCE TO ROMANIA OR WE GIVE
           ASSISTANCE TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN QUESTION?
           IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
           
           

           MR. HARKIN: WELL, I --
           

           MR. BIDEN: I TAKE IT THE ANSWER IS YES?
           
           

           MR. HARKIN: WAIT A SECOND. I DON'T THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.
           BECAUSE WHAT G.A.O. SAID IS THAT NATO ENLARGEMENT COULD ENTAIL
           COSTS IN ADDITION TO THOSE COUNTRIES IN THE PARTNERSHIP POUR
           PEACE, FOR EXAMPLE, OTHERS WHO MAY NOT BE INVITED TO JOIN NATO
           BUT BECAUSE OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO, THERE MAY BE OTHER
           COSTS INCIDENTAL AND ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
           SAYING. DOES THE SENATOR SAY THAT ABSOLUTELY THERE WILL BE NO
           OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED TO P.F.P. COUNTRIES WHEN NATO IS
           ENLARGED?
           
           

           MR. BIDEN: IF THE SENATOR WILL YIELD FOR ME TO RESPOND, THE
           ANSWER IS, I AM SAYING THERE IS NO OBLIGATION WE UNDERTAKE. THE
           SENATOR SITS ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. THE SENATOR WILL
           HAVE TO MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT AS EACH OF THOSE ITEMS COME
           BEFORE HIM WHETHER HE WISHES TO DO IT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE
           GOING TO HAVE -- AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE -- THE PRESIDENT HAS
           SENT UP RECENT WITHIN THE LAST THREE MONTHS A REQUEST FOR
           ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR TURKEY TURKEY, ADDITIONAL MILITARY
           EQUIPMENT FOR GREECE. NOW, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR

           COMMON BUDGET IN NATO. ZERO. NOW, THE SENATOR SITS ON THE
           APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. HE CAN COME TO THE FLOOR AND HIS
           FOREIGN MILITARY SALES OF THOSE COUNTRIES, HE CAN SAY, NO, WE
           DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. HE CAN VOTE AGAINST IT. IT IS
           IRRELEVANT. HAS NOTHING DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT POLAND IS A
           MEMBER OF NATO OR THE CZECH REPUBLIC IS A MEMBER OF NATO. WHAT
           THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT MEANS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
           
           SUGGEST, IS THE FOLLOWING: THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL THREE
           COUNTRIES IN NATO, WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT OUR DEFENSES WOULD BE

           EVEN FURTHER ENHANCED -- BILATERALLY ENHANCED. THE U.S.'
           INTERESTS WOULD BE ENHANCED IF WE GAVE MORE MONEY, MORE FOREIGN
           MILITARY SALES TO ROW -- TO ROMANIA OR TO THE BALTICS OR
           ANYWHERE ELSE. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO -- ZERO -- WITH WHETHER
           OR NOT WE EXPAND NATO. ZERO. NOTHING. THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
           IS ON THE FLOOR, STRONG AND LEAN OPPONENT OF EXPANSION. HE
           KNOWS THAT THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO

           SEND FOREIGN MILITARY SALES, WHICH WE SUBSIDIZE, TO GREECE OR
           TURKEY. YET HE VOTES FOR IT. HE VOTES FOR IT, BUT IT HAS
           NOTHING TO DO WITH NATO. ZERO. NOTHING TO DO WITH NATO. ZERO.
           IT IS NOT PART OF NATO'S COMMON BUDGET, COMMON BUDGET. THE ONLY
           THING, I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO MY COLLEAGUE, THAT WE ARE
           COMMITTING OURSELVES TO WITH THE EXPANSION OF NATO IS THAT WE

           WILL CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE ROUGHLY 25% OF THE COST OF THE
           COMMON BUDGET OF NATO, AND THE THINGS THAT THE D.O.D.
           REFERENCED AND WHAT MY FRIEND FROM IOWA IS TALKING ABOUT HAVE
           ZERO TO DO WITH THE COMMON BUDGET. THERE IS A CHART HERE. THE
           BUDGET COST-SHARING FORMULA IN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NATO COMMON
           BUDGET. I WILL LATER IN THE DAY GO INTO GREAT DETAIL BECAUSE I
           THINK ONE OF THE GREAT MISNOMERS HERE IS, HOW THE NATO IS
           FUNDED. WITH ALL DUE -- AND I'M NOT SPEAKING TO MY FRIEND FROM

           IOWA WHO KNOWS THIS AREA VERY WELL BECAUSE HE DESERVES ON THE
           APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. BUT MANY OF US WHO DO NOT SERVE ON
           THE APPROPRIATIONS OR ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE DON'T
           NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THE DETAIL OF HOW NATO BUDGET IS
           CONSTRUCTED. THERE ARE THREE COMMON BUDGETS. I WILL NOT GO INTO
           IT NOW, BUT THEY ARE THE THINGS WHERE ALL 16 NATO NATIONS REACH
           INTO THEIR POCKET AND PAY FOR. THEY ARE NOT THE NATIONAL
           BUDGETS. THE NATIONAL BUDGET, MY FRIEND ON THE AUTHORIZING

           COMMITTEE, BOTH MY FRIENDS STANDING HERE ARE ON THE ARMED
           SERVICES COMMITTEE, IN THE NATIONAL BUDGET, WE DECIDE WHETHER
           OR NOT OUT OF OUR MILITARY BUDGET, WE ARE GOING TO HELP GREECE
           -- BEYOND THE COMMON BUDGET. WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HELP
           TURKEY, BEYOND THE COMMON BUDGET. WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HELP
           CHILE, BEYOND THE COMMON BUDGET. WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO SPEND
           MONEY IN KOREA, BEYOND THE COMMON BUDGET. SO WHAT HAPPENS HERE

           IS WE ARE TAKING GREAT BIG APPLES AND PUTTING THEM IN BASKETS
           OF SMALL ORANGES. THE REASON WHY THOSE NUMBERS WHICH I'LL GO
           INTO GREAT DETAIL, RANGE FROM $125 BILLION TO $1.5 BILLION IS
           WE ARE COUNTING THE WRONG THINGS. AND SO THE ISSUE HERE IS --
           AND WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS IN DETAIL -- WHAT IS
           NATO'S -- AND I KNOW MY FRIEND FROM VIRGINIA KNOWS THIS WELL.
           WHAT IS THE COMMON BUDGET OF NATO?
           AND WHAT ARE WE COMMITTING OURSELVES TO SPEND IN ADDITION TO

           WHAT WE'RE NOW SPENDING ON THE COMMON BUDGET OF NATO BECAUSE
           THESE THREE COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO BE ADDED, IF THEY'RE ADDED,
           IF WE PREVAIL?
           AND SO THAT'S THE ISSUE, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MY FRIEND IS
           MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES HERE. WHEN HE REFERS TO THE D.O.D.
           SAYS, WE MIGHT IN THE FUTURE HAVE TO OR DECIDE TO -- NOT HAVE
           TO, DECIDE TO SPEND MORE MONEY. IT IS NOTHING -- IT HAS NOTHING

           TO DO WITH ANY OBLIGATION WE'RE UNDERTAKING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
           EXPANDING NATO. I THANK MY COLLEAGUE AND I
{END: 1998/04/28 TIME: 11-15 , Tue.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}