DENIAL OF FREEDOM BEGAN. IT IS FROM WITHIN RUSSIA, UNDER THE
           HISTORIC PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP OF MIKHAIL GORBACHEV AND FROM
           WITHIN WITHIN THE HARDY AND HEROIC BAND THAT RESISTED TYRANNY
           EVEN AS IT BEGAN TO REAR ITS HEAD AGAIN AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF
           THE BERLIN WALL, IT IS FROM WITHIN RUSSIA THAT THIS HISTORIC
           CHANGE BEGAN. IT GANG, AS I SAID EARLIER, AND OCCURRED BECAUSE

           OF THE STEADFASTNESS, THE SENSE OF PURPOSE, THE HEROISM OF
           PEOPLE IN THE NATO ALLIANCE AND WESTERN EUROPE AND THE UNITED
           STATES AND IT BEGAN AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF SUFFERING BY THOSE
           WHO LIVED WITHIN RUSSIA AND WITHIN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE
           FORMER SOVIET UNION UNDER SOVIET DOMINATION. IT HAS TO BE A
           CENTRAL TENET, A PRIORITY OF OUR FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY, TO

           DEVELOP GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA. WE HAVE WORKED MIGHT LLY AT
           THAT -- WE HAVE WORKED MIGHTILY AT THAT. BUT I MUST SAY, AS I
           HEAR SOME OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT OF NATO,
           WHO ARE PREPARED TO BLAME ENLARGEMENT OF NATO ON ANYTHING THAT
           GOES WRONG IN RUSSIA, I SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT PREDICTION.

           THOSE WHO FORESEE THE MOST DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF NATO
           ENLARGEMENT, INCLUDING AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED HERE, THE
           HEIGHTENED POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR WAR, I SIMPLY DO NOT SEE IT.
           MR. PRESIDENT, THESE ARGUMENTS IN SOME WAYS SEEM MORE
           PSYCHOANALYTICAL THAN GEOPOLITICAL, MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL THAN
           STRATEGIC. YES, I KNOW THAT RUSSIA HAS STRUGGLED AND HAS MUCH

           WORK TO DO, AND I WOULD SIMPLY ECHO AND EMBRACE BY ASSOCIATION
           THE WORDS -- THE COMMENTS OF THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA, MR.
           LUGAR, ON THIS COURSE. THE FACT IS THAT RUSSIA HAS COME SOME
           DISTANCE IN SPITE OF THE CHALLENGES IT HAS FACED. IT HAS
           SUSTAINED A DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED GOVERNMENT. IT HAS FOUGHT
           OFF ATTEMPTS TO CREATE DENIALS OF FREEDOM WITHIN THE COUNTRY.

           MR. PRESIDENT, IF THERE IS A THREAT TO THE CONTINUED MOVEMENT
           FORWARD OF FREEDOM WITHIN RUSSIA, IF THERE IS A THREAT THAT
           WILL SOMEHOW RAISE THE POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR CONFLICT WITH
           RUSSIA, IT IS NOT THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO. I MUST SAY THAT, AS
           I SPEAK TO MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE
           CITIZENS, INCLUDING BUSINESS PEOPLE AND THINK TANK PEOPLE IN
           RUSSIA, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME IN THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

           WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO. BUT HONESTLY, I
           DON'T FIND IT TO BE THE PRIORITY CONCERN THAT SOME ON THIS
           FLOOR HAVE SUGGESTED. THE FACT IS, AS THE SENATOR FROM
           MINNESOTA, MR. GRAMS, SAID, EVERY POLL THAT I'VE SEEN TAKEN IN
           RUSSIA SHOWS THAT THE PEOPLE LIST NATO ENLARGEMENT FAR DOWN IN
           THEIR ITEMIZATION OF CONCERNS THEY HAVE ABOUT WESTERN BEHAVIOR.
           AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE AND OUR PEOPLE WOULD FEEL IF WE WERE IN
           RUSSIA. WHAT WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO US?

           THAT NATO IS ABOUT TO ACCEPT HUNGARY, POLAND AND THE CZECH
           REPUBLIC INTO THIS ALLIANCE?
           OR THAT I'M NOT GETTING MY PAYCHECK FOR WORKING AT THE
           SHIPYARD, OR I'M NOT GETTING MY PENSIONEER'S CHECK AS A RETIRED
           PERSON, OR MY CHILDREN'S EDUCATION IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT USED TO BE?
           THOSE ARE THE THINGS THIS THE RUSSIANS ARE FOCUSED ON, THOSE
           ARE THE THREATS TO STABILITY IF IT EXISTS WITHIN THE SOVIET
           UNION, THOSE ARE THE -- THOSE CONSTITUTE THE GROUND IN WHICH A

           MORE AGGRESSIVE AND WARLIKE LEADERSHIP MIGHT, -- I HOPE NEVER
           WILL -- BUT MIGHT ARISE AGAIN IN RUSSIA. BUT NOT NATO
           ENLARGEMENT. IT SIMPLY, AND RESPECTFULLY, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO
           ME THAT THAT IS THE CASE. NOW I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE'VE WORKED
           HARD AT BUILDING GOOD RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA. THE FOUNDING ACT,
           WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO CREATES AN INSTITUTIONALIZED
           RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RUSSIA AND NATO THAT SOME FEEL ACTUALLY
           GOES TOO FAR. I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATELY BALANCED. THE

           RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENT CLINTON, PRESIDENT YELTSIN, VICE
           PRESIDENT GORE, FORMER PRIME MINISTER C CHERNOMYRDIN IS VERY
           STRONG. IF WE HAVE HAD A SHORTCOMING IN OUR POLICY IN OUR
           POST-COLD WAR REACTION TO RUSSIA THAT MAY HAVE SQUANDERED AN
           OPPORTUNITY, WHICH IS A PHRASE THAT ONE OF THOSE WHO OPPOSES
           NATO ENLARGEMENT SPOKE EARLIER -- IT'S NOT TO ENLARGE NATO. IT

           IS THAT WE DID NOT RUSH IN EARLY ENOUGH AND BROADLY ENOUGH TO
           HELP THE RUSSIANS BUILD THEIR ECONOMY IN THE PERIOD AFTER THE
           BERLIN WALL FELL. THERE WAS SOME GREAT VOICES AT THAT TIME --
           LATE PRESIDENT NIXON MOST PROMINENTLY AT THAT POINT SPEAKING TO
           THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY WE HAD. THE TRUTH IS THAT WHAT WE
           DELIVERED WAS TIMID, WAS WEAK, WAS INSUFFICIENT. IF WE
           SQUANDERED AN OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY, IT WAS AT THAT MOMENT
           WHEN, AS SOME SAID, WE MIGHT WELL IN OUR OWN SELF-INTEREST HAVE

           ADOPTED THE EQUIVALENT OF A MARSHALL PLAN FOR RUSSIA, ENCOURAGE
           AND CREATING INCENTIVES FOR AMERICAN BUSINESSES TO GO OVER AND
           INVEST THERE AND CREATE OPPORTUNITY, NOT ENOUGH OF THAT HAS
           HAPPENED. AND VERY LITTLE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED. THAT -- IT IS
           IN THAT NEGLECT THAT WE PLANTED THE SEEDS THAT MIGHT -- AND
           AGAIN WE HOPE AND PRAY NEVER WILL -- GROW INTO A LESS DEMOCRAT,
           MORE AGGRESSIVE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. BUT NOT NATO ENLARGEMENT.
           AND LET'S COME BACK TO THIS. SO MUCH OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS

           ENLARGEMENT IS BASED ON THE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON RUSSIA. BUT
           THAT'S WHERE I SAID EARLIER -- AND I SAY RESPECTFULLY -- THIS
           BECOMES AN ARGUMENT MORE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS THAN IN GEOPOLITICS
           OR REALITY. NATO IS A DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE. NATO HAS NO HOSTILE
           INTENT ON RUSSIA. DOES RUSSIA FEAR MILITARY AGGRESSION FROM
           HUNGARY, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, AND POLAND?

           OF COURSE NOT. SO WHY DO WE YIELD TO WHAT WE SEE OR FEAR MAY BE
           THE OPPOSITION WITHIN RUSSIA TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO?
           AND WHEN WE DO THAT, WHEN WE YIELD, WE DO SOMETHING FAR MORE
           DAMAGING. AND THAT IS THAT WE FORGET THE PRINCIPLE I SPOKE
           ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS FREEDOM. WE FORGET -- WE
           FORGET WHAT WINSTON CHURCHILL SAID ABOUT THAT IRON CURTAIN

           FALLING IN THE MIDDLE OF EUROPE. WE FORGET WHAT HARRY TRUMAN
           SPOKE TO US WHEN HE JOINED IN THE CREATION OF NATO, AS HE E#
           WATCHED THE SOVIET THREAT IN EUROPE, AGAINST FREEDOM. WE FORGET
           WHAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY DID AT THE BERLIN WALL AND THE
           CONFRONTATION IN BERLIN IN THE 1960'S. WE FORGET WHAT PRESIDENT
           REAGAN SAID ABOUT THE EVIL EMPIRE. WHY WAS IT EVIL?
           BECAUSE IT DENIED ITS PEOPLE THE FREEDOM -- THAT'S THE DRIVING

           REASON FOR BEING -- OF AMERICA. AND WE FORGET THAT WE FOUGHT
           THAT COLD WAR OVER AND -- OVER AN ARBITRARY, DICTATORIAL,
           UNNATURAL DIVISION IN EUROPE, WHICH DENIED THE PRINCIPLE OF
           FREEDOM. THE LINE STALIN FORCED IN EUROPE. SO WILL WE NOW,
           BECAUSE OF OUR FEAR -- STRANGE FOR A VICTOR, THE WORLD'S GLOBAL

           SUPERPOWER, TO HAVE SUCH FEAR. WILL WE NOW REDRAW THAT LINE BY
           SHUTTING PEOPLE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE OUT OF THE
           COMMUNITY OF FREEDOM -- OF FREE NATIONS?
           I DON'T BELIEVE WE WILL. I'M CONFIDENT THAT MORE THAN THE
           NECESSARY NUMBER OF OUR COLLEAGUES HERE IN THE SENATE WILL SEE
           THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO VALIDATE THE END OF THE
           COLD WAR, TO UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUGHT, AND

           TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS FOR PEACE AND SECURITY IN EUROPE AMONG
           THE MEMBER NATIONS OF NATO, AS THOSE MEMBERS EXPAND, AND
           TOGETHER BETWEEN THEM IN A FREE AND SECURE AND STRONG RUSSIA.
           MR. PRESIDENT, I CLOSE WITH WORDS FROM ONE OF THE HEROES OF THE
           CENTURY AND CERTAINLY THE MERE ROWS OF THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD
           -- ONE OF THE HEROES OF THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD, HAFEZ

           EL-ASSAD HALF, WHO WROTE -- VAK LAUGH HALF HE WILL, -- VACLAV
           HAVEL HAVEL. THE NATO ALLIANCE SHOULD URGENTLY REMIND ITSELF
           THAT IT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST AN INSTRUMENT OF DEMOCRACY,
           INTENDED TO DEFEND MUTUALLY-HELD AND CREATED POLITICAL AND
           SPIRITUAL VALUES VALUES. IT MUST SEE ITSELF NOT AS A PACT OF
           NATIONS AGAINST A MORE OR-LESS OBVIOUS ENEMY, BUT AS A

           GUARANTOR OF UROAMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND, THUS, AS A PILLAR OF
           GLOBAL SECURITY. END QUOTE. THAT IS WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.
           I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DIALOGUE AS IT CONTINUES THIS WEEK. IT IS
           A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT DEBATE, AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL JOIN IT
           DIRECTLY AND NOT HESITATE TO SPEAK FORCEFULLY BUT OF COURSE
           RESPECTFULLY TO ONE ANOTHER. THAT MUCH IS AT STAKE HERE. I

           THANK THE CHAIR, AND I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
           IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. ASHCROFT: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M PLEASED TO HAVE
           THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RISE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE RAMIFICATIONS
           OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
           ORGANIZATION. A NUMBER OF ISSUES HAVE RECEIVED ATTENTION, AND
           IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE FOCUS ON THOSE ISSUES AND GIVE THEM
           VERY, VERY INTENSE SCRUTINY. THE COST OF ENLARGEMENT, FOR
           INSTANCE, DESERVES OUR ATTENTION. THE POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC
           BENEFITS THAT -- OR DEFICITS THAT MIGHT COME AS A RESULT OF NEW

           MEMBERS BECOME -- BECOMING A PART OF NATO. THE RELATIONSHIP OF
           THE UNITED STATES WITH THE SOVIET UNION, WHICH WILL HAVE AN
           IMPACT AS A RESULT OF WHAT THE UNITED STATES DOES IN TERMS OF
           THE RATIFICATION OF A NATO WITH THREE NEW MEMBERS. BUT WHILE
           ALL THESE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT, I THINK IN SOME RESPECTS THEY
           SERVE TO MASK A VERY IMPORTANT INQUIRY WHICH SHOULD BE MADE
           REGARDING THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION. AND THAT IS,
           WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION?

           AND IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION BEING INAPPROPRIATELY
           CHANGED?
           IS IT BEING TRANSITIONED AWAY FROM THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS
           INITIALLY CALLED INTO EXISTENCE EXISTENCE?
           THE EXPANSION OF NATO -- AND THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IT
           SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED -- IS SIGNIFICANT. BUT
           DEFINING WHAT THE ORGANIZATION IS FOR IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT.
           I JUST MIGHT, IN AN ASIDE HERE, MENTION THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT
           WE CAN REDEFINE NATO NATO. AND ONE  THE MOST SERIOUS QUESTIONS

           THAT I WOULD RAISE IS, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR NATO TO BE REDEFINED
           WITHOUT NATO BEING RECONSTITUTED AS A TREATY ORGANIZATION AND
           WITHOUT THE REDEFINITION BEING SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE
           UNITED STATES SENATE?
           IF A TREATY, ONCE IT'S ENACTED AND RATIFIED BY THE UNITED
           STATES, CAN THEN BE CHANGED WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES SENATE
           AGAIN RATIFYING THE TREATY, WE WOULD NEVER NEED BUT TO MAKE,
           ENTER INTO ONE OR TWO TREATIES AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY

           ADMINISTRATIONS COULD TRANSFER AND TRANSITION AND ENLARGE AND
           SUBTRACT AND GROW OR SHRINK THE TREATY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
           DESIRES OF A PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION, A FOREIGN POLICY
           STRATEGY OF AN ADMINISTRATION, THE OBJECTIVES, WHETHER THEY BE
           INTERNATIONAL OR NATIONAL, A TREATY'S SORT OF PURPOSE MIGHT BE
           DISTORTED FROM DEFENSE TO TRADE OR OTHERWISE CHANGED, IF IT'S
           POSSIBLE TO CHANGE A TREATY WITHOUT COMING BEFORE THE UNITED

           STATES SENATE. NOW, WE OBVIOUSLY FIND OURSELVES WITH THE NORTH
           ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION LOOKING AT A TREATY WHICH WAS
           DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE MEMBER STATES OF THE TREATY
           ORGANIZATION FROM THE SOVIET UNION. NOW, THE SOVIET UNION
           DOESN'T REALLY EXIST ANYMORE. THERE ARE NATIONS THAT WERE A
           PART OF THE SOVIET UNION THAT NOW EXIST, BUT WE FIND OURSELVES
           WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION OF FORCES, THE
           CHALLENGES TO THE YURX THE CHALLENGES TO THE MEMBER STATES OF

           NATO ARE DIFFERENT THAN THEY WERE WHEN THE TREATY WAS CALLED
           INTO EXISTENCE IN THE LATE 1940'S.
{END: 1998/04/27 TIME: 14-45 , Mon.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}