MR. HELMS: NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME SAY THAT I REMEMBER THE
           OLD ADAGE, I LIKE A FINISHED SPEAKER. I REALLY, TRULY DO. I
           DON'T MEAN ONE THAT'S POLL ISSUED. I JUST MEAN ONE WHO'S
           THROUGH. NOW, I DELIBERATELY STAYED AWAY FROM THE PODIUM
           YESTERDAY BECAUSE I WANTED EVERYBODY TO HAVE THEIR SAY ON THIS
           MATTER. AND I THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO MOVE ALONG AND BECOME
           FINISHED SPEAKERS. BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW
           COMMENTS THAT OCCURRED TO ME WHEN I LISTENED IN MY OFFICE AND

           ON THE FLOOR, A COMBINATION OF THE TWO, TO VARIOUS STATEMENTS
           THAT WERE BEING MADE. THE CONRAD AMENDMENT -- AND I HAVE THE
           GREATEST RESPECT FOR SENATOR CONRAD -- I MUST ULTIMATELY OPPOSE
           BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER, NEVER AGREED TO TACTICAL
           NUCLEAR WEAPONS REDUCTIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS OR THE SOVIETS FOR
           GOOD REASON. FIRST, THESE WEAPONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO AN EQUITABLE

           SHARING OF THE RISK AND BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH NATO'S NUCLEAR
           MISSION. FURTHER, THEY ARE A VISIBLE SIGN THAT NATO IS PREPARED
           TO USE ANY AND ALL FORCES NECESSARY TO DETER AN ATTACKS -- AN
           ATTACK. AND, FINALLY, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY -- NO WAY --
           THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN VERIFY RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE WITH AN
           AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. AND, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I AM INCREASINGLY FASCINATED BY THE WAILING AND
           TEARING OF HAIR AND GNASHING OF TEETH ENGAGED IN BY THE MORE

           LIBERAL OF OUR BRETHREN, THE NEWS MEDIA AND OTHERWISE,
           REGARDING THE IMPACT THAT NATO EXPANSION WILL HAVE ON THE
           U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP. IT SEEMS THAT THE ONLY ARGUMENT
           AGAINST NATO ENLARGEMENT, ASIDE FROM THE COST BUGABOO, IS THE
           SENATE APPROVAL OF THIS TREATY WILL DERAIL RUSSIAN RATIFICATION
           OF START 2. NOW, IT WOULD IMPERIL FUTURE ARMS CONTROL
           AGREEMENTS -- I'VE HEARD IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN -- AND TURN

           RUSSIA INTO A HOSTILE POWER. NOW, I'M GOING TO AGREE -- I'M
           GOING TO AGREE TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS AS TIME GOES BY, NOT
           THIS AFTERNOON, BUT I WILL PUT IN THE RECORD MY FULL COMMENTS.
           MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF BELLYACHING ABOUT
           THE START 2 TREATY. IT'S BEEN NEARLY 5 1/2 YEARS SINCE THE
           UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA SIGNED THAT TREATY. AND SINCE THAT
           TIME, RUSSIA HAS USED START 2 RATIFICATION A PRETEXT TO HOLD

           HOSTAGE AN EVER-CHANGING, EVER-GROWING NUMBER OF ISSUES. AND,
           OF COURSE, THE WEAK-KNEED ARMS CONTROLLERS AND RUSSIAN
           APOLOGISTS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS
           BEEN FEEDING THE BEAST, ENCOURAGING THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE ONE
           HOSTAGE AFTER ANOTHER. I COULD WALK YOU THROUGH THE VARIOUS
           RUSSIAN THREATS, SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS HAVE THREATENED THAT
           THERE WOULD BE NO START 2 TREATY IF THE UNITED STATES DEPLOYS A
           NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE. AT A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE
           MARCH 1997 HELSINKI SUMMIT, PRESIDENT YELTSIN CRITICIZED U.S.

           DISCUSSION OF A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE, STATING, "WELL" --
           AND I'M QUOTING HIM -- "YOU UNDERSTAND OF COURSE, WHY IT IS WHY
           THE STATE DUMA HAS NOT YET RATIFIED START 2, BECAUSE A.B.M. WAS
           SUSPENDED." WHY DOES RUSSIA NOT WANT THE UNITED STATES TO
           ABANDON THE A.B.M. TREATY?
           BECAUSE WITH IT, WE ARE PREVENTED FROM HAVING A NATIONAL
           MISSILE DEFENSE, AND RUSSIA CAN HOLD OUR CITIZENS HOSTAGE TO
           ITS INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE. AND THEN THERE'S THE
           SECOND THREAT -- THE RUSSIANS HAVE THREATENED THAT THERE WOULD

           BE NO START 2 UNLESS THE UNITED STATES MAKES MORE FOREIGN AID
           CONCESSIONS. IN 1996, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DUMA'S DEFENSE
           COMMITTEE TIED START 2 RATIFICATION NOT MERELY TO THE A.B.M.
           TREATY BUT TO ADDITION AND I QUOTE -- "THE PROVISION OF
           ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC
           NUCLEAR ARSENAL." THREAT NUMBER THREE -- THE RUSSIANS DECLARED
           THERE WOULD BE NO START 2 UNLESS THE U.S. MAKES OTHER UNSMES

           TIED -- UNSPECIFIED CONCESSIONS. IN SEPTEMBER OF 1997 -- LAST
           YEAR -- THE -- THERE WAS A VOICE, A POWERFUL VOICE, WHO
           CONTROLS A SIZABLE BLOCK OF DUMA VOICE WHO DECLARED THAT START
           2 SHOULD NOT BE RATIFIED UNTIL A DOISH QUOTE, AS HE PUT IT --
           "A FAVORABLE MOMENT" AND THAT RUSSIA SHOULD HOLD OUT FOR MORE
           U.S. CONCESSIONS. ACCORDING TO THIS MAN, THIS LEADER -- QUOTE
           -- "WE HAVE CREATED A POWERFUL MISSILE COMPLEX AND WE MUST USE
           IT TO GET CERTAIN ADVANTAGES." NOW, I HAVE GONE ON AND ON IN

           THIS TO MAKE A RECORD OF WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING TO US IN PLAYING
           GAMES ABOUT THE TREATY. AND I'M GOING TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
           THAT ALL OF THIS STATEMENT BE PRINTED IN THE RECORD SO IT WILL
           BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY EXACTLY WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THE TREATY.
           -- I MEAN, TO THE AMENDMENT.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. HELMS: I ASK FOR THE REGULAR ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE
           CONRAD AMENDMENT NUMBER 2320, MR. PRESIDENT.
           

           MR. CONRAD: -- MR. KERRY: MR. PRESIDENT, I OBJECT. MR.
           PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST PREVIOUSLY
           -- I WAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AFTER SENATOR STEVENS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE WAS A PREVIOUS ORDER RECOGNIZING
           THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. THERE WAS A PREVIOUS ORDER
           RECOGNIZING THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
           

           MR. HELMS: I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. AND, OF COURSE, WE WOULD
           WANT TO FOLLOW THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS
           RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. KERRY: MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK THE SENATOR FROM NORTH
           CAROLINA. I WOULDN'T NORMALLY ASSERT THAT, BUT I HAVE BEEN
           WAITING HERE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF WAITING FOR AN
           OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND I KNOW THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
           WANTS TO SPEAK. AND I'D ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IF IT MAY,
           HIS COMMENTS APPEAR WITHOUT THIS INTERRUPTION SO THAT -- IN THE
           RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. KERRY: MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK THE CHAIR FOR THAT. I JUST
           WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES, IF I MAY, TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF
           THE EXPANSION. I HAVE WATCHED CLOSELY AND PARTICIPATED CLOSELY
           AS A MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND HAVE A
           NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PLACE WE FIND OURSELVES
           IN NOW WITH RESPECT TO THIS FIRST EASTERN EUROPEAN EXPANSION OF

           NEW DEMOCRACIES TO NATO. THE FIRST EASTERN EUROPEAN, OBVIOUSLY,
           SINCE 1949. ONE WOULD THINK -- I THINK MOST AMERICANS WHO
           FOLLOW THIS KIND OF TOPIC VERY CLOSELY ARE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED
           BY THE LEVEL OF THE DEBATE, THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE OVER THE
           PAST WEEKS, SORT OF SBRUPED AS IT WAS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME --
           INTERRUPTED AS IT WAS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND ALSO BY THE

           SEEMING LACK 6 SIGNIFICANT CONCERN IN THE COUNTRY ABOUT THIS.
           THERE IS A -- THERE IS, OBVIOUSLY, IN THE PAST WEEKS A SENSE BY
           ANY OF THE PUNDITS WATCHING THIS, WHO HAVE OBSERVED AND HAVE
           POINTED IT OUT, THAT -- THAT GIVEN THE MOMENTOUS NATURE OF THE
           TRANSFER THAT IS TAKES PLACE, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN KRKLLY MORE
           CONCERN. OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THAT CONCERN HAS BEEN HEIGHTENED IN
           THE LAST WEEKS. BUT NEVERTHELESS, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE

           AMERICAN PUBLIC IS FUNDAMENTALLY RELATIVELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE
           FACT THAT WE ARE EXTENDING NATO'S GEOGRAPHIC RANGE AND MILITARY
           COMMITMENTS, AND THE DEBATE WE NOW FIND OURSELVES IN CERTAINLY
           DOESN'T SEEM JOINED LIKE PAST DEBATES OF MOMENTOUS IMPACT ON
           OUR FOREIGN POLICY THAT MANY OF US TOOK PART IN AND REMEMBER
           WHEN THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE SOVIET UNION AND ISSUES OF ARMS
           CONTROL LOOMED LARGER ON OUR HORIZON. ONE MIGHT ASK WHY THAT

           IS, WHY IS THERE THIS LACK OF CONFRONTATION OR DRAMA. AND I
           THINK IT'S QUITE SIMPLE BECAUSE WE'RE FUNDAMENTALLY BEING
           PRESENTED WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI. IT IS TRUE THAT THE BASIC
           DECISIONS HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY BEEN TAKEN -- TAKEN BY EUROPE, BY
           THE PRESIDENT, BY NATO, AND I MIGHT POINT OUT SIGNIFICANTLY BY
           RUSSIA. RUSSIA RECOGNIZING SOME TIME AGO THAT THIS WAS
           ESSENTIALLY A DONE DEAL TOOK STEPS TO JOIN IN THE AVAILABLE

           OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATION THAT WERE MADE AVAILABLE. BUT AT
           THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, IT WAS VERY APPARENT TO OUR
           LEADERS IN BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS AND OTHERWISE THAT WE WERE
           MOVING DOWN THIS ROAD. I SUPPOSE WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HERE,
           BECAUSE IF THEY MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THAT SOMEHOW IF THEY'D
           OFFERED GREATER OPPOSITION, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE, I
           DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY THE CASE. BUT CLEARLY THE DEBATE
           WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, AT LEAST SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. SO HERE
           WE ARE IN THE SENATE CONSTITUTIONALLY CHARGED WITH THE POWER OF

           ADVISING AND CONSENTING ON TREATIES BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SENATE
           ITSELF HAS BEEN PACKAGED AND DELIVERED, MUCH AS THE TREATY HAS.
           AND I KNOW THAT SOME OUTSIDE OF THE SENATE ARGUE, WELL, IT'S
           NEVER TOO LATE. YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION. BUT I
           THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE REALITIES OF WHERE WE FIND
           OURSELVES. I'VE TALKED TO A GREAT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, EACH
           OF WHOM HAVE EXPRESSED THE NOTION THAT PERHAPS A PARTNERSHIP
           FOR PEACE APPROACH OR SOME OTHER APPROACH MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE

           ADVISABLE BUT FINDING THEMSELVES WHERE THEY WERE, THEY CAME OUT
           OF THAT DILEMMA AND THAT EQUATION WHERE WE ARE TODAY ALSO. IT
           MUST ALSO BE POINTED OUT, THOUGH, AT THE SAME TIME FOR THOSE
           WHO HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PROCESS, THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE
           EXPRESSING A DESIRE TO DO AT THE NEXT STAGES STAGES; THAT IS,
           BE MORE A PART OF THE PROCESS, IMPOSE ITSELF MORE IN THE
           CONSULT CONSULTATIVE PROCESS, AND, FRANKLY, BE MORE VIGILANT

           WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF SOME OF THE
           RESOLUTIONS THAT COME TO THE FLOOR IN THE MEANTIME. IT IS
           CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE SENSE OF LACK
           OF ENGAGEMENT AT THIS MOMENT IS THE REALITY THAT THE SENATE HAS
           GONE ON RECORD A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS AS BEING
           TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING FORWARD WITH ENLARGEMENT. AND SO I
           THINK THAT ALL OF THIS REALLY UNDERSCORES THE DILEMMA OF THIS
           RATIFICATION PROCESS AT THIS STAGE. IT'S BEEN VERY HARD FOR

           ANYBODY TO OBJECT ALSO TO THE NOTION THAT RECONNECTING EUROPE'S
           EAST AND WEST, PERFORMING MODERN DIPLOMATIC PLASTIC SURGERY ON
           AN HISTORICAL DIVIDING LINE, WHICH REMINDS EVERYONE OF SOVIET
           OPPRESSION, THE POST-WORLD WAR TWO ALLIED LASSITITUDE IS WRONG.
           MANY HAVE FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY NO, EVEN IF THEY HAD
           RESERVATIONS, TO COUNTRIES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SO CONSTRUCTIVELY
           AND PLENTIFULLY CONTRIBUTED TO LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES AND TO
           WHOM WE ARE SO CONNECTED HISTORICALLY, CULTURALLY AND

           POLITICALLY. AND ALSO, MANY HAVE FOUND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
           EVEN THINK OF SAYING NO, KNOWING THAT THOSE COUNTRIES AT SOME
           POINT IN THE FUTURE, IN THE UNKNOWN, DEPENDING ON WHAT RUSSIA
           EVOLVES SBURX DEPENDING ON WHAT HISTORY DECIDES -- EVOLVES
           INTO, DEPENDING ON WHAT HISTORY DECIDES TO LAY IN FRONT OF US,
           WHAT HISTORY ULTIMATELY WILL BE IN THE REGION, THAT WE MIGHT
           SOMEDAY BE ASKED THE QUESTION THAT WAS ON THEIR LIPS IN THE
           NOT- NOT-SO-DISTANT PAST, WHICH IS "WHY DIDN'T YOU HELP US WHEN

           YOU COULD?" SO WE'RE ENGAGED IN A DEBATE THAT IS ROOTED
           SIGNIFICANTLY IN EMOTIONS AND MEMORIES OF THE COLD WAR. AND
           WITH ONLY A MINIMAL AND LATE REFERENCE TO THE CHANGES THAT HAVE
           ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, BOTH IN EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD,
           AND IN RUSSIA, AND TO THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PROCESS OF
           ENLARGEMENT ONCE AGAIN. -- ONCE BEGUN. THE TRUTH IS THAT NATO
           ALREADY IS NO LONGER THE SAME ENTITY THAT IT WAS A DECADE AGO

           AND IT NO LONGER FACES THE SAME THREAT. FOR 40 YEARS, NATO OOD
           AS A BULLET, PRESERVING EUROPEAN SECURITY AND, BY EXTENSION,
           OUR OWN SECURITY FOR ONE VERY SIMPLE REASON -- IT WAS POISED
           AGAINST THE THREAT THAT WAS POSED BY THE SOVIET UNION AND ITS
           WARSAW PACT ALLIES. NATO WAS THE SIMPLE WALL OF DETERRENCE
           AGAINST SOVIET EXPANSIONISM AND NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON. IT DREW ITS
           POWER AND HIS RISON DEBT FROM THE GEO GEOPOLITICAL
           CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIMES. IT WAS THERE LIKE EVEREST AND IT

           DETERRED BECAUSE OF ITS UNWAVERING PRESENCE. IT WAS NOT BECAUSE
           OF WHAT NATO DID THAT IT DREW ITS POWER. IT WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT
           IT WAS ON PAPER AND IN POSSIBILITY. BUT NOW WITH THE SOVIET
           UNION, ITS EMPIRE AND THE THREAT THAT THEY POSED GONE, THE
           TRUTH IS THAT SO, TOO, IS NATO'S ORIGINAL MISSION. TODAY
           DEMOCRATIC ELEMENTS WITH VARYING DEGREES OF SUCCESS ARE TAKING
           ROOT WHERE COMMUNISM ONCE HELD SWAY, EVEN IN RUSSIA. TO MY

           KNOWLEDGE, NOT ONE MILITARY EXPERT OR INTELLIGENCE ANALYST HAS
           SUGGESTED THAT A THREAT LIKE THE OLD THREAT COULDY MEFRPBLG
           AGAIN -- COULD EMERGE AGAIN WITHOUT AT LEAST TEN YEARS OF
           BUILDUP AND WARNING. TO BE SURE, RUSSIA CONTINUES TO BE A
           NUCLEAR POWER BUT OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF NUCLEAR
           POWER FROM THE SOVIET UNION OF YESTERDAY. IT IS A COUNTRY
           TRYING TO MAKE THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY AND TO WESTERN
           INSTITUTIONS
{END: 1998/04/30 TIME: 17-15 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}