H4150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 23, 1997

May, along with Congressman HENRY WAXMAN thority to continue operating for one additional Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the and Congressman LOUIS STOKES. year, until September 30, 1997. Because the Review Board will need more time to process H.R. 1553 amends the John F. Kennedy As- review process proved to be more complex the classified records that remain, primarily sassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to and time-consuming than anticipated, the records from the Central Intelligence Agency, provide one additional year for the Assassina- President included in his fiscal year 1998 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The tion Records Review Board to complete its budget a request for a 1-year extension of the additional year will permit the review board to work, which is to review and publicly release Review Board's authorization. complete this work, close out the operation, documents relating to the Kennedy assassina- I support the Assassination Records Review and submit its final report. tion at the earliest possible date. The Amer- Board's request for a 1-year extension of its It is a credit to this institution that we can ican people have a right to demand account- authorization so that it can complete its mis- provide historians and the American public ability by the Federal Government regarding sion in a professional and thorough manner. with all relevant information concerning the as- the Kennedy assassination records. By allow- However, let me make it very clear that, as sassination of President Kennedy. It is my be- ing the Review Board to finish its work and chairman of the Government Reform and lief that we should allow the Assassination make the Kennedy assassination documents Oversight Committee, I do not intend to sup- Records Review Board to complete this impor- public, Congress will demonstrate to Ameri- port any additional extension of the Review tant undertaking. I urge my colleagues to join cans that the Government has nothing to hide. Board's life beyond September 30, 1998. On me in supporting the passage of H.R. 1553. H.R. 1553 would extend the Review Board's June 4, 1997, the chairman of the Review Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield September 30, 1997, termination date under Board, John Tunheim, testified before the Na- back the balance of my time. current law to September 30, 1998. H.R. 1553 tional Security, International Affairs, and Crimi- Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield authorizes $1.6 million in fiscal year 1998 for nal Justice Subcommittee, and in his testi- back the balance of my time. this purpose. I would note that Congressman mony he assured the subcommittee that one The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. STOKES, who is an original cosponsor of my additional year would be sufficient for the Re- PETRI). The question is on the motion bill, sponsored the 1992 act in the House and view Board to finish its work. offered by the gentleman from Texas chaired the House Select Committee on As- I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1553. [Mr. SESSIONS] that the House suspend sassinations that was established in 1976. Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gen- the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1553. The purpose of the 1992 legislation was to tleman from Texas for yielding to me. I rise in The question was taken; and (two- publicly release records relating to the Ken- support of this bill and I want to commend thirds having voted in favor thereof) nedy assassination at the earliest possible Chairman BURTON and ranking Member Mr. the rules were suspended and the bill date. The Assassination Records Review WAXMAN for bringing this bill to the floor. As an was passed. Board was set up to review and release the original cosponsor of this legislation, and as A motion to reconsider was laid on voluminous amounts of information in the Gov- the former chairman of the House Select the table. ernment's possession. The FBI, the Secret Committee on Assassinations, I have a strong f Service, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the interest in this issue. In 1978, the House Select Committee on NOTICE OF ALTERATION OF Rockefeller Commission, the Church Commit- Assassinations completed a 2-year investiga- ORDER OF CONSIDERATION OF tee in the Senate, and the House Select Com- tion of the facts and circumstances surround- AMENDMENTS DURING FURTHER mittee on Assassinations have all held assas- ing the assassination of President John F. CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1119, NA- sination records, and related documents have Kennedy. The completed investigation in- TIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- also been in the possession of certain State cluded the publishing of 9 volumes of hearings TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 and local authorities as well as private citi- with the testimony of 55 witnesses and 619 Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant zens. exhibits. to section 5 of House Resolution 169 When the 1992 legislation was considered, In the years following the Assassination and as the designee of the chairman of nearly 1 million pages of data compiled by offi- Committee's work, old issues and new theo- Committee on National Security, I re- cial investigations of the assassination had not ries continued to surface about the assassina- quest that during further consideration been made available to the public, some 30 tion of President Kennedy. Therefore in 1992, of H.R. 1119 in the Committee of Whole years after the tragedy. In creating the Review I authored, and the Congress passed, the and following consideration of amend- Board, Congress believed that simply making President John F. Kennedy Assassination ment No. 15, printed in part 2 of House all relevant information available to the public Records Collect Act. This law created the As- Report 105–137, as modified by section was the best way to respond to the continuing sassination Records Review Board which was 8(b) of House Resolution 169, the fol- high level of interest in the Kennedy assas- given the responsibility to identify, secure, and lowing amendments be considered in sination, and was preferable to undertaking a make available, all records related to the as- the following order: new congressional investigation. The 1992 law sassination of President Kennedy. We felt that Amendment No. 1, printed in part 2 requires the Review Board to presume that an independent board would represent the of House Report 105–137; amendment documents relating to the assassination most effective and efficient vehicle to make all No. 34, printed in part 2 of House Re- should be made public unless there is clear assassination records available to the public. port 105–137; amendment No. 10, printed and convincing evidence to the contrary. To date, the Assassination Records Review in part 1 of House Report 105–137; As a result of the Review Board's efforts, Board has acted to transfer more than 14,000 amendment No. 11, printed in part 1 of more than 14,000 documents have been documents to the JFK collection at the Na- House Report 105–137; amendment No. transferred to the National Archives and tional Archives. The collection currently totals 7, printed in part 1 of House Report 105– Records Administration for inclusion in the 3.7 million pages. It is used extensively by re- 137, as modified by section 8(a) of JFK collection. That collection now totals ap- searchers from all over the United States. Fur- House Resolution 169; the amendment proximately 3.7 million pages and is used ex- ther, by the end of fiscal year 1997, the Re- printed in section 8(c) of House Resolu- tensively by researchers from all over the Unit- view Board will have reviewed and processed tion 169; amendment No. 35 printed in ed States. The Review Board was in the news assassination records that more than 30 dif- part 2 of House Report 105–137. in April of this year when it voted to make ferent government offices have identified, not f public the Abraham Zapruder film of the Ken- including files of the Federal Bureau of Inves- nedy assassination. tigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- The John F. Kennedy Assassination Becase of the Review Board's diligent ef- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 Records Collection Act of 1992 originally pro- forts, some very important documents have The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- vided a 3-year timetable for the Assassination been made public. They include: thousands of ant to House Resolution 169 and rule Records Review Board to complete its work. CIA documents on Lee Harvey Oswald and XXIII, the Chair declares the House in Unfortunately, there were lengthy delays in the the assassination of President Kennedy; thou- the Committee of the Whole House on appointment of board members, and as a con- sands of records from the House Assassina- the State of the Union for the further sequence, the Review Board was scheduled tions Committee, including a staff report of Os- consideration of the bill, H.R. 1119. to cease operations before it began its work. wald's travel to Mexico City; thousands of b Therefore, in 1994, Congress ``restarted the records from the FBI which document the 1319 clock'' by extending the 1992 law's termination agency's interest in Oswald before the Ken- IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE date for 1 year, to September 30, 1996. The nedy assassination; and extensive FBI files on Accordingly the House resolved itself Review Board subsequently exercised its au- its investigation of the assassination. into the Committee of the Whole House June 23, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4151 on the State of the Union for the fur- way to spend unwisely is to spend militarily and accept more responsibil- ther consideration of the bill (H.R. money which instead should be spent ity for their own defense. The United 1119) to authorize appropriations for by our wealthy allies in Western Eu- States cannot afford to lead the effort fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for military rope. I believe America has been insuf- both financially and militarily on a activities of the Department of De- ficiently active in the international continent that has the resources, and I fense, to prescribe military personnel front in many ways. But one area believe the responsibility, to accept strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, where we have erred on the other side this burden themselves. and for other purposes, with Mr. YOUNG is in Western Europe, where we have According to a recent article in the of Florida in the chair. allowed Germany and France and Nor- Wall Street Journal, the Congressional The Clerk read the title of the bill. way and Belgium and Denmark and Budget Office estimates that admitting The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit- many other now quite prosperous na- the three former Warsaw Pact nations tee of the Whole rose on Friday, June tions to do less than they should. could ultimately cost the United 20, 1997, amendment No. 43, printed in NATO expansion is a test of this. NATO States of America as much as $150 bil- section 8(e) of House Resolution 169, of- expansion will cost money. I am not lion, I repeat that, $150 billion over 10 fered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. talking now about the money that na- years, at a time when the recently TRAFICANT] had been disposed of. tions will have to spend on their own passed budget resolution calls for cuts Pursuant to section 5 of House Reso- military equipment. We are talking in Medicare spending of $115 billion, lution 169, it is now in order to con- about what NATO itself will have to Medicaid cuts of $13.5 billion, and cuts sider amendment No. 15, printed in spend on telecommunications and in in the student loan program of $1.8 bil- part 2 of House Report 105–137, as modi- other ways. lion. fied by section 8(b) of House Resolution We believe, those of us who have of- When, at the same time, Social Secu- 169. fered this amendment, the gentleman rity is said to be in jeopardy, how can AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR. FRANK OF from Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS], the gen- we justify providing billions of U.S. MASSACHUSETTS tleman from California [Mr. CONDIT] dollars to protect foreign nations from Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. and myself, that it is unfair for the a potential, not actual, a potential Chairman, I offer an amendment. American taxpayers to continue to pay threat? The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- disproportionately in Western Europe, We must not forget the original pur- ignate the amendment. particularly if had we have adopted a pose of NATO, which was to provide for The text of the amendment is as fol- budget agreement which leaves many the collective security in the European lows: Members convinced that defense itself theater in a time of Communist threat Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. FRANK of will have too little. I do not agree with and cold war tensions. To force the Massachusetts: that. I would like to be able to free up At the end of title XII (page 379, after line U.S. taxpayer to foot the bill for a new money for other purposes, but we cer- NATO is illogical and, in addition, in 19), insert the following new section: tainly do not want our defense dollars SEC. 1205. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS FOR COST the words of Henry Kissinger, a dilu- OF NATO EXPANSION. spent unnecessarily. The administra- tion of the traditional NATO purposes. (a) The amount spent by the United States tion has said, the Clinton administra- Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. as its share of the total cost to North Atlan- tion, that the cost to the United States Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gen- tic Treaty Organization member nations of of NATO expansion over the next 12 tleman from California [Mr. DELLUMS], the admission of new member nations to the years will be a total of $2 billion. I take extremely knowledgeable and thought- North American Treaty Organization may them at their word. not exceed 10 percent of the cost of expan- ful ranking minority member of this This amendment takes what the ad- committee. sion or a total of $2,000,000,000, whichever is ministration has told us NATO expan- Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I less, for fiscal years 1998 through 2010. sion will cost, $2 billion, and makes (b) If at any time during the period speci- thank my colleague for his generosity. that a cap. It does say and the adminis- fied in subsection (a), the United States’ Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the tration is proposing that we spend share of the total cost of expanding the amendment offered by my distin- North Atlantic Treaty Organization exceeds about 7 or 8 percent. I go them one bet- guished colleague, the gentleman from 10 percent, no further United States funds ter. The amendment says that, if costs Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK]. I think it may be expended for the costs of such expan- are considerably less than we expect, is a meritorious amendment and his re- sion until that percentage is reduced to that could happen, although it rarely marks are very poignant and very below 10 percent. does, we would cap our contribution at much to the point. I would like to sim- The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the 10 percent. So I have an amendment ply make a few brief remarks in sup- rule, the gentleman from Massachu- here, along with the gentleman from port of the amendment. setts [Mr. FRANK] and a Member op- Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS] and the gen- First, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that posed, each will control 10 minutes. tleman from California [Mr. CONDIT], The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. which conserves American defense you are aware the United States pro- STUMP] will be recognized in opposi- spending for purposes that we may feel vides disproportionate support for tion. necessary by taking the President at NATO in many capacities, making The Chair recognizes gentleman from his word and saying we will spend a available naval forces as well as com- Massachusetts [Mr. FRANK]. maximum of $2 billion on NATO expan- munications, transportation and logis- Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. sion, or 10 percent, the higher percent- tics capabilities, and strategic nuclear Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and age that he says, if that should be less forces that we are all aware of. As a re- 30 seconds. than $2 billion. sult, it pays a substantially larger por- Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf Finally, for those who say what if tion of its GDP on its military account of my colleague, the gentleman from there is an unforeseen emergency, that than our European allies. Several of Connecticut [Mr. SHAYS] and the gen- is why we have a Congress, people can our European allies are wealthy na- tleman from California [Mr. CONDIT]. come back to us. This does not say you tions and can contribute more to the We are about to vote a budget deal, can never have another penny, it says burdens of the alliance than they cur- some of us will vote no but it will pass. you cannot have a blank check. rently do. It will severely constrain spending, in- Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve Second, new members of NATO cluding defense spending. We can differ the balance of my time. should be expected to contribute along over how much defense spending ought Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. the terms of existing Members. And if to be, but we all acknowledge that we Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gen- they are going to be members, it seems are about to adopt in this budget reso- tlewoman from Missouri [Ms. DANNER]. to me across the board of responsibil- lution a binding constraint that will Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in ities they ought to be able to contrib- mean far less for the national security support of the Frank amendment. ute. And it seems to me that that is part of this budget than many Mem- As Europe melds together economi- important in terms of their financial bers think. Given that, it is essential cally through the European Union, I capability as well as military, political that we not spend money unwisely. One believe they need to meld together and foreign policy. H4152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 23, 1997 Third, the amounts contained in the pansion of security commitments that would prudent is it for the United States to commit to amendment reflect the administra- flow from enlarging NATO on the other, how these expanded security guarantees? tion’s current estimates of the prob- prudent is it for the United States to commit to I could go on at length about the serious po- able U.S. share. The amendment would these expanded security guarantees? litical, strategic, and military issues raised by establish that in law for a period I could go on at length about the serious po- the prospect of NATO expansion. Certainly, through the year 2010, after which a re- litical, strategic, and military issues raised by with U.S. defense budgets in their 13th con- view can be made of the continuing ap- the prospect of NATO expansion. Certainly, secutive year of decline, and with no end to propriateness of that level of commit- with U.S. defense budgets in their 13th con- defense cuts in sight, the cost of NATO ex- ment/restraint. secutive year of decline, and with no end to pansion is a significant concern, but just one Finally, Mr. Chairman, the legisla- defense cuts in sight, the cost of NATO ex- of many. tive initiatives have in the past pro- pansion is a significant concern, but just one COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, vided important leverage to the U.S. of many. Washington, DC, April 25, 1997. Government in negotiations with Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield The Honorable WILLIAM J. CLINTON, NATO partners on burdensharing ar- back the balance of my time. President, The White House, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Washington, DC. rangements, and on numerous occa- DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Recent statements sions we in this body have voted to Chairman, I yield back the balance of by Administration officials indicate that the give our Government that kind of le- my time. United States will propose the expansion of verage. The gentleman from Massachu- Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I too am con- NATO to include several central European setts simply provides us with one addi- cerned about the costs of NATO expansion states by 1999 at the upcoming NATO Min- tional opportunity to do it. I rise in en- and have serious doubts about the estimates isterial meeting in July 1997. thusiastic support. advanced by the Clinton administration. While We are strong supporters of NATO and are Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I include I have some doubts about the practicality of inclined to support its expansion. We think there is a strong moral case to be made for a statement by the chairman of the this amendment as written, I look forward to expanding the alliance and there are compel- committee for the RECORD. working with all Members who have concerns ling geopolitical reasons in favor of alliance Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I too am con- about the numerous implications of NATO ex- enlargement as well. Americans have long cerned about the costs of NATO expansion pansion. recognized the importance of a peaceful Eu- and have serious doubts about the estimates As my colleagues may be aware, Mr. DEL- rope to the United States, a condition that advanced by the Clinton administration. While LUMS and I share a number of concerns over serves the aforementioned U.S. national in- I have some doubts about the practicality of the process and purpose of NATO expansion. terests. Recently, we wrote a joint letter to the Presi- However, we believe that the purpose of this amendment as written, I look forward to the alliance is as important as the process of working with all Members who have concerns dent, as yet unanswered, and published a expansion. We are concerned that thus far, about the numerous implications of NATO ex- jointly authored editorial highlighting these the Administration has failed to explain in pansion. concerns. I ask that the letter and copy of the much detail what a fully expanded NATO en- As my colleagues may be aware, Mr. DEL- editorial be submitted for the record and print- tails in terms of its function, structure and LUMS and I wrote a letter to the President, as ed immediately following my remarks in the membership. There remain a number of im- yet unanswered, and published a jointly au- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. portant unanswered questions about the im- thored editorial highlighting these concerns. Both the letter and editorial take cost as an plications of such a course on U.S. national Both the letter and editorial take cost as an important factor in NATO expansion, but sec- security strategy, force structure, defense budgets, and relations with Russia and other important factor in NATO expansion, but sec- ondary to questions of national security and states. Understanding the answers to these ondary to questions of national security and military strategy. I believe as many others do questions is central to understanding the far military strategy. I believe as many others do that NATO is perhaps the most successful alli- reaching consequences of NATO expansion. that NATO is perhaps the most successful alli- ance in history, and I am concerned that the As the House National Security Committee ance in history, and I am concerned that the administration's focus on the process of NATO will increasingly focus on this important administration's focus on the process of NATO expansion diverts attention from understanding matter in the months ahead, we would appre- expansion diverts attention from understanding the purpose of an expanded alliance. ciate written answers, classified and unclas- the purpose of an expanded alliance. Personally, I am a strong supporter of sified as required, to the following questions: Personally, I am a strong supporter of NATO, and inclined to support its expansion, STRATEGY NATO, and inclined to support its expansion, for moral, military, and strategic reasons. How- 1. Will an expanded NATO continue to play for moral, military, and strategic reasons. How- ever, too many fundamental questions remain its traditional role in protecting the security interests of the United States and our allies? ever, too many fundamental questions remain unanswered about the implications for United What risks to those interests exist because unanswered about the implications for United States national security strategy, force struc- of expansion plans? How do the benefits of States national security strategy, force struc- ture, defense budgets, and relations with Rus- NATO expansion outweigh the risks? How do ture, defense budgets and relations with Rus- sia and other states. For example: you envision a fully-expanded NATO? De- sia, and other states. In addition to military criteria such as equip- scribe its function, structure, and member- For example: In addition to military criteria ment interoperability, the administration has ship? such as equipment interoperability, the admin- stressed other factors such as ``adherence to 2. Identify the various states seeking istration has stressed other factors such as market democracy'' as necessary for admis- NATO membership and provide your perspec- tive on their reasons for seeking member- ``adherence to market democracy'' as nec- sion to NATO. While opening European mar- ship. Does fear of a resurgent Russia play a essary for admission to NATO. While opening kets may be a worthy U.S. policy objective, it part? What do you believe they hope to gain European markets may be a worthy U.S. pol- is hardly a traditional security consideration by joining NATO? With reference to each icy objective, it is hardly a traditional security and could pose obstacles to admission that prospective member, please explain whether consideration and could pose obstacles to ad- actually prove unsettling to European stability. their candidacy is supported by the current mission that actually prove unsettling to Euro- There are also questions of treaty commit- members of the alliance. If there are dif- pean stability. ments. The heart of NATO's charter is article ferences of opinion among current NATO There are also questions of treaty commit- V, which was interpreted through the cold war members regarding the candidacies of pro- ments. The heart of NATO's charter is article to mandate the use of armed force to defend spective members, please identify those areas where differences exist, and which V, which was interpreted through the cold war NATO members. In fact, the actual language member countries have concerns. to mandate the use of armed force to defend of article V is ambiguous, and thus, perhaps 3. What military, geostrategic, or other NATO members. In fact, the actual language requires the United States and our current and benefits might new NATO members bring to of article V is ambiguous, and thus, perhaps future alliance partners to come to a mutual the alliance? What might be the liabilities requires the United States and our current and understanding of what article V means in this associated with their membership? future alliance partners to come to a mutual changed security environment. 4. The current strategy for NATO expan- understanding of what article V means in this There are calculations of military force struc- sion is a high-profile, protracted process, re- quiring many years to implement. How long changed security environment. ture and capabilities, as well. Considering re- will it take to complete this process, and There are calculations of military force struc- ductions in U.S. defense budgets and military what indices will show that it is completed? ture and capabilities, as well. Considering re- force structure on the one hand and the ex- How many intermediate stages of expansion ductions in U.S. defense budgets and military pansion of security commitments that would do you envision, and which states are likely force structure on the one hand and the ex- flow from enlarging NATO on the other, how to become NATO members at these stages? June 23, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4153 Were alternative strategies that would speed tive members regarding the meaning of Arti- apportioned to the 050 budget function as op- the process rejected? If the expansion process cle V? Would the interpretation of Article V posed to the 150 budget function? were interrupted prior to completion, would differ for new NATO members? RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA NATO remain strategically viable at each FORCE STRUCTURE AND MILITARY CAPABILITY 1. How do you anticipate Russia will react stage of expansion? What measures factor in 1. Will the United States and its NATO al- to an expanded NATO? How does the Admin- that judgment? lies have the military wherewithal to honor istration weigh the likelihood that Russia 5. The Administration’s February 1997 Re- the security guarantees implied by Article V will renege on its commitments to abide by port to the Congress On the Enlargement of of the North Atlantic Treaty for new NATO the CFE, INF, ABM, and START treaties, NATO describes the process of NATO en- members located in central and eastern Eu- forward deploy nuclear weapons, invade the largement as part of a broader strategy to rope? Baltic states, or accelerate the formation of adapt the alliance to the post-Cold War secu- 2. The Administration’s Report to the Con- alliances of its own, perhaps with China? rity environment, which includes a willing- gress On the Enlargement of NATO declares 2. Will NATO expansion aggravate Russian ness to conduct out-of-area peacekeeping- that the United States will ‘‘extend solemn threat perceptions and increase the possibil- type operations. To what degree are prospec- security guarantees to additional nations,’’ ity of nuclear miscalculation? What assur- tive NATO members willing and able to par- but that ‘‘there will be no need for additional ances have been given by the Administration ticipate in peacekeeping operations, includ- U.S. forces.’’ Considering on-going cuts in to Russia in order to ameliorate Russia’s ing those that are ‘‘out of area’’? Does the the defense budget and U.S. military force concerns over expansion? Has the United United States intend to seek significant par- structure on the one hand and the expansion States pledged not to deploy nuclear weap- ticipation in such operations by newly-ad- of security commitments that would flow ons on the territory of new NATO members? mitted NATO member states? Is such par- from expanding NATO on the other, can the What guarantees have the Russians sought ticipation a viable substitute for American U.S. prudently commit to these expanded se- regarding NATO expansion and which have involvement in such peace-keeping like oper- curity guarantees? How? And at what cost to been agreed to by the Administration? Will ations? the U.S. national military strategy? the Russians have a veto over any NATO de- 6. The Administration’s report to Congress 3. Have the United States and NATO devel- cision? What procedures will be put in place also concludes that failing to enlarge NATO oped contingency plans for the defense of to give Russia a voice in NATO deliberations would lead to feelings of ‘‘isolation and vul- new NATO members under various scenarios, and the alliance decision-making process, in- nerability’’ among prospective members, including a resurgent Russia? What forces cluding decisions on peacekeeping? What would be ‘‘destabilizing,’’ and ‘‘would en- and operational capabilities would be needed confidence building measures, if any, will be courage nationalist and disruptive forces to satisfy the most demanding of these sce- implemented to lessen Russian concerns and throughout Europe.’’ On what evidence are narios, including nuclear scenarios? insecurities? these conclusions based? Please identify the 4. Under an expanded NATO, will the U.S. 3. Russian statements indicate that Russia specific nationalistic and disruptive forces of ‘‘nuclear umbrella’’ extend to new members may feel isolated and vulnerable if NATO ex- concern. in central and eastern Europe? Since the pands, and may revert to a more nationalis- MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA United States has reportedly pledged not to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the terri- tic security posture. Does the Administra- 1. What criteria have been established to tories of these new NATO members, does this tion share this view? If so, does the Adminis- determine which states are ready to be inte- mean that any nuclear guarantees extended tration judge the security risks of an inse- grated into the formal NATO security struc- to these states must be satisfied by U.S. cure, more nationalistic Russia to be less ture? What are the relative weights as be- strategic nuclear weapons? Will the nuclear than those of an insecure eastern Europe if tween political, economic and military re- forces of other NATO states provide similar NATO fails to expand? form in making a judgment on eligibility for extended deterrence to new members? Has 4. Has the United States promised Russia membership? Will current members be ex- there been any discussion regarding with- that the Baltic countries would not be al- pected to meet these criteria for continued drawal of tactical nuclear weapons from the lowed into NATO for the foreseeable future? membership? theater as an element to calm possible Rus- Will there be any U.S. security commitment 2. To what degree is economic integration sian concerns? to the Baltic states? If so, what form will it with the European Community a pre- 5. It has been reported that the defense of take? If not, why not? requisite to NATO membership? Why is this, new NATO member states will be based on 5. There have been reports that the United or why is this not, important? the principle of rapidly deploying other States will seek to alleviate Russian con- 3. Which states are the most likely can- NATO forces to those countries in the event cerns over NATO expansion by agreeing to didates for NATO membership and why? Are of conflict, rather than pre-deploying sub- significant reductions in the ceilings on former Soviet republics, like Ukraine and stantial force enhancements in-country. It NATO conventional arms imposed by the the Baltic states, or even Russia itself, pos- has further been reported that this strategy Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty sible candidates for NATO admission? If we was chosen as a result of Russian concerns or by freezing the level of NATO military seek to avoid a new European division, can over NATO encroachment on their borders forces deployed near Russia. Are these re- we afford to proceed with enlargement with- and Congressional concerns over the cost to ports accurate? What constraints will be im- out a fully developed view as to our ultimate the United States of expansion. Are these re- posed on the military force levels of new goal for enlargement? ports accurate? More generally, please ex- NATO members? Does the Administration 4. There have been reports that some pro- plain the rationale for preferring rapid de- plan to seek comparable constraints on spective NATO member states have sold ployment capabilities to pre-positioning. forces deployed in Ukraine, Belarus, and the arms to so-called rogue regimes like Iran. Russian region of Kaliningrad? How does this affect their prospects for FUNDING 1. What are the underlying assumptions 6. How does the Administration see Rus- membership? Is the halting of such sales or sia’s relations with an expanded NATO? How arms deliveries a prerequisite for alliance that resulted in the Administration’s cost estimate for NATO expansion and how credi- does the Administration plan to integrate membership? Does a discussion of these is- Russia into a unified European security sues create a climate to help reduce pro- ble do you believe those assumptions are for the long term? In particular, please identify structure and what is the timeline for this liferation of technology capable of aiding integration? Will the Partnership for Peace programs for weapons of mass destruction or the number of countries, the types of activi- ties, and the assumed level of threat on program remain the primary vehicle for ac- advanced conventional weapons by current complishing this objective? Can the Admin- members? which the estimates are based. Also, please supply a similar analysis based upon your istration envision Russian NATO member- TREATY COMMITMENTS projections for a fully expanded NATO, and ship in the future, assuming all conditions 1. What exactly will U.S. treaty obliga- for any intermediate steps envisioned for the for membership are met? If so, would more tions be to new NATO members? What types expansion process. explicit recognition of this possibility ease of assurances, if any, have been discussed 2. Will other NATO countries share in the Russian concerns with current plans for en- with prospective members regarding the U.S. costs of an expanded NATO and how will larging NATO? commitment to their security? costs be apportioned among them? 7. What is the nature of the proposed 2. Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty 3. What arrangements are in place or being NATO-Russia Charter? The Joint Statement states that, in response to an armed attack, negotiated to ensure that the new financial signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin at a NATO member ‘‘will assist the Party or commitments from NATO members are Helsinki notes there should be ‘‘consulta- Parties so attacked by taking forthwith indi- kept? Who will pay these costs in the event tion, coordination and, to the maximum ex- vidually and in concert with the other Par- new members or current members are unable tent possible where appropriate, joint deci- ties, such actions as it deems necessary, in- to keep their commitments to do so? sion-making and action on security issues of cluding the use of armed force, to restore 4. How and why does the Administration’s common concern.’’ Can the Russians insist and maintain the security of the North At- cost estimate for NATO expansion signifi- on participating in NATO discussions on any lantic area.’’ What is the Administration’s cantly differ from the estimates prepared by issue of concern? Does this give Russia a interpretation of Article V? Does it mandate the Rand Corporation and the Congressional veto power over NATO decisions? At a mini- the use of U.S. armed force to defend other Budget Office? mum, would the NATO-Russian Charter com- NATO members? What representations have 5. What will be the source of the U.S. fund- plicate the NATO decision-making process in been made by the Administration to prospec- ing for NATO expansion? What costs will be ways detrimental to the alliance, especially H4154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 23, 1997 if there existed a lack of common purpose We believe that at least seven basic sets of Russia relations. The projected NATO–Rus- between NATO and Russia? questions must be addressed more thor- sia charter is unlikely to permanently solve 8. Doesn’t a separate NATO-Russia forum oughly. The first, and most basic, concerns this problem. undermine the effectiveness of the existing the role that the alliance will play in U.S. Finally, there is the matter of relations NATO Council? Because Russia will appar- national security strategy. Will an expanded within the NATO alliance itself. To date, the ently be able to participate in NATO deci- NATO continue in its traditional role as a process of expansion has been driven almost sions before new members are admitted, is defensive military alliance? The administra- exclusively by the United States. We need to the Administration concerned whether the tion, in its recent report to Congress on the know, for example, if our current allies have NATO-Russian forum might unfairly penal- costs of NATO expansion, speaks of ‘‘broader differences of opinion regarding which states ize prospective members by giving greater adaption of NATO’’ for the purpose of ‘‘evo- should be included in an expanded NATO or voice to Russian concerns earlier in the proc- lution of a peaceful, undivided and demo- the timeframe for their inclusion. What un- ess? cratic Europe.’’ What, exactly, does that resolved tensions or rivalries might new RELATIONS WITH OTHER NATO MEMBERS mean, especially if expansion is accom- members bring into NATO that could cause plished one step at a time? fractures within the alliance, as exist now 1. What reservations have been expressed, A second set of questions revolve around between Greece and Turkey? Will these ten- if any, by the current NATO states regarding the criteria for membership in the alliance. sions or rivalries lead to potential American the expansion of the alliance? Are there dif- For example, in addition to military criteria military involvement, crisis management, or ferences of opinion regarding which states such as equipment interoperability, the ad- even intra-alliance hostilities, or will they should be included in an expanded NATO ministration has stressed other factors such be stabilized in the context of alliance man- and/or the timeframe for their inclusion? If as ‘‘adherence to market democracy’’ as nec- agement? so, please identify the specific positions of essary for admission to NATO. While open the individual member countries. These questions raise profound issues of European markets may be a worthy U.S. pol- 2. What unresolved tensions or rivalries U.S. national security and defense policy, icy objective, it is hardly a traditional secu- might new NATO members bring into the al- provide insight into the grave commitment rity consideration and could pose obstacles liance that could cause fractures within that the expansion of NATO entails, and un- to admission that actually prove unsettling NATO, as exist now between Greece and Tur- derscore the need for a more thorough airing to European stability. key? Might these tensions or rivalries lead of the issue and a frank assessment of the at- Third, there are questions of treaty com- to potential American military involvement tendant risks. The Atlantic Alliance remains mitments. The heart of NATO’s charter is in intra-alliance hostilities? Does the Ad- the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Eu- Article V, which was interpreted through the ministration prefer for purposes of European rope, and has been responsible for one of the Cold War to mandate the use of armed force stability to seek to resolve such conflicts most peaceful periods in European history. to defend NATO members. In fact, the actual within the security architecture of the On many matters of national security policy language of Article V is ambiguous, and NATO alliance? If so, would similar tensions we hold widely divergent political views, but thus, perhaps requires the United States and (e.g., Baltic-Russian problems) be better re- we have a common recognition of the con- our current and future alliance partners to solved in this context as well? tinuing value and future potential of NATO. come to a mutual understanding of what Ar- We appreciate your prompt attention to It should be possible to reach a common un- ticle V means in this changed security envi- these important questions and ask that an- derstanding of the purpose of the alliance in ronment. swers be provided not later than May 30, 1997. a vastly changed Europe, and the best paths Sincerely, A fourth set of questions involves calcula- to achieve that purpose without needlessly FLOYD D. SPENCE, tions of military force structure and capa- redividing Europe. But the time to come to Chairman. bilities, and applies to the United States as grips with the serious implications of an ex- RON DELLUMS, well as to any alliance partner, current or panded NATO is now, not after the process of Ranking Minority Member. prospective. expansion is underway. Considering reductions in U.S. defense The CHAIRMAN. The question is on [From the Washington Times, May 29, 1997] budgets and military force structure on the the amendment offered by the gen- one hand and the expansion of security com- IS A BIGGER NATO ALSO BETTER? tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. mitments that would flow from enlarging FRANK]. (By Floyd D. Spence and Ronald V. Dellums) NATO on the other, how prudent is it for the In just a few months, the Clinton adminis- U.S. to commit to these expanded security The question was taken; and the tration is set to commit the United States to guarantees? Considering the similar reduc- Chairman announced that the ayes ap- the expansion of NATO, and consequently ex- tions that have occurred in the military peared to have it. pand America’s role in guaranteeing stabil- budgets and forces of our NATO partners, Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand ity and security in Europe. how do they intend to support expanded se- a recorded vote, and pending that, I We are strong supporters of NATO and are curity commitments? And under an ex- make the point of order that a quorum inclined to support its expansion. We think panded NATO, will the U.S. ‘‘nuclear um- is not present. there is a strong moral case to be made for brella’’ extend to new members in central expansion and find compelling geopolitical and eastern Europe? Since the U.S. has re- The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House reasons in favor of alliance enlargement as portedly pledged not to deploy tactical nu- Resolution 169, further proceedings on well. From the nation’s founding, Americans clear weapons on the territories of these new the amendment offered by the gen- have long recognized the importance to this NATO members, would this mean that any tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. country of a peaceful Europe. Since its nuclear guarantees extended to these states FRANK] will be postponed. founding, the NATO alliance has been the must be satisfied by U.S. strategic nuclear The point of no quorum is considered primary vehicle for protecting our own na- weapons? withdrawn. tional interests on the continent. Funding questions raise a fifth category of However, we believe that NATO’s fun- uncertainties. The administration’s recent b 1330 damental purpose, even in the post-Cold War report on the costs of NATO expansion was world, is more important than the process of based upon very optimistic political assump- Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I move expansion. We are concerned that the discus- tions about the likelihood of conflict in Eu- that the Committee do now rise. sion to date of expansion has failed to illu- rope, and only calculated the costs of expan- The motion was agreed to. minate the purpose, function, structure and sion based upon the admission to the alli- Accordingly, the Committee rose; membership of an expanded NATO. To us, it ance of three nations, probably Poland, Hun- and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. HAN- makes little sense to embark upon such an gary, and the Czech Republic. Even if the SEN] having assumed the Chair, Mr. ambitious endeavor without first having a cost estimates are accurate, a more fully ex- better understanding of where we want to go panded NATO will surely come at a much Young of Florida, Chairman of the and the obstacles likely to be encountered. higher price tag. However, cost studies done Committee of the Whole House on the We are troubled by the number of impor- by the Congressional Budget Office and Rand State of the Union, reported that that tant questions that have not been publicly Corporation have used more conservative as- Committee, having had under consider- addressed concerning the implications of ex- sumptions and projected much higher costs ation the bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize pansion on U.S. national security strategy, than has the administration. appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and military force structure, defense budgets, Sixth, how will Russia react to an ex- 1999 for military activities of the De- and relations with Russia and other states. panded NATO? The process of expansion partment of Defense, to prescribe mili- The administration and the Congress owe it promises to be a protracted one, quite pos- to all Americans to explain as fully as pos- sibly extending over decades. If the current tary personnel strengths for fiscal sible the far-reaching consequences of NATO Russian attitude toward expansion persists, years 1998 and 1999, and for other pur- expansion and to set forth a vision of a fully NATO expansion will become a permanent poses, had come to no resolution there- expanded Atlantic alliance. source of tension in already complex U.S.- on. June 23, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H4155 SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE CON- sider amendment No. 1 in part 2 of my hometown paper, which was full of CERNING ORDER OF AMEND- House Report 105–137. talk about what happened on that L.A. MENTS DURING FURTHER CON- AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. BACHUS freeway. SIDERATION OF H.R. 1119, NA- Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer We really have to ask ourselves, who TIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- an amendment. in our country are our heroes? Some TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will des- people are saying that the fact that Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask ignate the amendment. Timothy McVeigh did what he did in unanimous consent that the notice I The text of the amendment is as fol- Oklahoma City, that he is still a mili- gave in order of amendments notice be lows: tary hero. I would remind my col- considered sufficient in terms of com- Part 2 Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. leagues that our country’s oldest mili- pliance with requirements of section 5 BACHUS: tary force is our National Guard; and of House Resolution 169. At the end of title X (page 360, after line 8), when it was formed, the word was said insert the following new section: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there that to be a good soldier, one had to be SEC. . PROHIBITION OF PERFORMANCE OF objection to the request of the gen- a good citizen, too; to fight for the MILITARY HONORS UPON DEATH OF country, you had to do it both at home tleman from Arizona? PERSONS CONVICTED OF CAPITAL Mr. DELLUMS. Reserving the right CRIMES. and abroad. to object, Mr. Speaker, I shall not ob- (a) MILITARY FUNERALS.—The Secretary of This amendment is not offered out of ject, but I simply reserve the right to Defense and the Secretary of Transportation, disrespect for any one person. It is of- with respect to the Coast Guard when it is object to yield to my distinguished col- fered out of respect, respect for the vic- not operating as a service in the Navy, may tims of those that we would honor in league to explain the basis of his unan- not provide military honors at the funeral of imous consent request so that Members our cemeteries with a 21- or 12-gun sa- a person who has been convicted of a crime lute, a chaplain, requiring military can understand. under State or Federal law for which death honor guard to be present. This amend- Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, will the is a possible punishment and for which the gentleman yield? person was sentenced to death or life impris- ment, the catalyst, is not Oklahoma Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gen- onment without parole. City. The catalyst was Mobile, AL, tleman from Arizona. (b) APPLICABILITY OF SECTION.—This sec- where last week a man named Henry tion applies without regard to any other pro- Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank Francis Hayes was given a full military vision of law relating to funeral or burial honor funeral and laid to rest at the the gentleman for yielding. benefits. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, we Mobile National Cemetery, over the The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the protest of several of the people serving have to give an hour’s notice. That was rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. the reason for it. in the unit who attended. BACHUS] and a Member opposed each Henry Francis Hayes was not a hero. Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the gen- will control 5 minutes. He was electrocuted in Alabama on tleman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman June 7 for the murder of a young black Mr. Speaker, is the next Member that from Alabama [Mr. BACHUS]. man, 19 years old, in Mobile, AL, who will be offering an amendment pre- Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield Henry Francis Hayes and other Ku pared to offer an amendment? myself such time as I may consume. Klux Klanners pulled from the safety of Mr. STUMP. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a his family, took him to another coun- Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I with- simple amendment. It simply states ty, beat him half to death with sticks, draw my reservation of objection. that someone convicted of a crime and slit his throat, brought him back to The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there sentenced to death or life imprison- Mobile County, put a hangman’s noose objection to the request of the gen- ment shall not be entitled to a full around his neck, and hung him. tleman from Arizona? honors funeral in one of our national A jury in the State of Alabama said There was no objection. cemeteries. that he was not a hero. But last week, f In considering this amendment, I in a military ceremony, we said to our think we all need to do some serious children and grandchildren, we are NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- soul searching. Who is in entitled to a TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 overlooking this. This is a good soldier. hero’s funeral? I think when we ask This is a hero. And he got a hero’s fu- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ourselves, who are our heroes, in this neral, and he is buried in the Mobile ant to House Resolution 169 and rule country, who do we honor? I think we cemetery. XXIII, the Chair declares the House in can go back to the summer of 1994 to I will simply say, who is entitled to a the Committee of the Whole House on tell us that we may be doing the wrong hero’s funeral? Who are our heroes? the State of the Union for the further thing, we may have confused celeb- Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I consideration of the bill, H.R. 1119. rities with heroes, we may have con- rise as a cosponsor of Mr. BACHUS' timely fused notoriety with character. b 1333 amendment that would not allow individuals In 1994, on a Sunday afternoon, we who commit capital crimes where the death IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE will recall that there was a famous penalty is an option to be eligible for a full mili- Accordingly the House resolved itself chase on an L.A. freeway and, in that tary burial. into the Committee of the Whole House chase, fully three-quarters of the news Regardless of whether you support or op- on the State of the Union for the fur- media in the country was focused on it. pose the death penalty, it is an affront that an ther consideration of the bill (H.R. As almost what appeared to be half of individual who, in the case of Timothy 1119) to authorize appropriations for the L.A. police force chased someone McVeigh, has been convicted of murdering fel- fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for military down that highway, America was low Americans, to receive the same honors to activities of the Department of De- transformed on to that event. which our veterans are entitled. Active mem- fense, to prescribe military personnel At the same time, on our other shore, bers of the military and veterans embody the strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, here in Washington, there was another very virtues we as Americans cherish. They and for other purposes, with Mr. YOUNG ceremony going on at the very same are the guardians of liberty and the caretakers of Florida in the chair. time. At the White House, two young of the freedoms we all hold dear. Convicted The Clerk read the title of the bill. Army Rangers were being awarded the murderers do not represent these ideals and The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit- Medal of Honor. It was a posthumous should not be honored for their service to our tee of the Whole House rose earlier ceremony. They had given their lives Nation. today, Amendment No. 15 printed in in Somalia. When they left the protec- Currently, there are restrictions regarding Part 2 of House Report 105–137, as modi- tion of their unit and tried to save what veterans are eligible for military burials. fied by section 8(b) of House Resolution some of their fellow soldiers, they were Anybody convicted of treason, espionage, mu- 169, by the gentleman from Massachu- killed. And they and their families tiny, or assisting an enemy of the United setts [Mr. FRANK]. were at the White House receiving the States cannot request a military burial. It is Pursuant to the order of the House Medal of Honor. There was no live TV morally right to add to this list those who have earlier today, it is now in order to con- coverage. There was no mention of it in wantonly disregarded the sanctity of human