Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota and compliment him on his leadership in proposing this amendment. Mr. President, I have expressed grave concern about this whole proposal to expand NATO. One concern that I have expressed is that it diverts our attention from our real national security threats as I see them today. This amendment by the Senator from North Dakota tries to bring us back to those real national security threats by talking about the threat that is posed by these tactical nuclear weapons. For that reason I think it is a very good amendment and one that I am very honored to cosponsor. Let me point out that we have had various hearings on this issue in the Armed Services Committee. There is no question but what the lack of agreement, the lack of progress, on dealing with tactical nuclear weapons is a serious concern for our military and a serious concern for our planners generally. This amendment is extremely modest in its language. Let me just call people's attention to specific provisions of it. First of all, it is a sense of the Senate. It does not have binding language in it. It essentially puts the Senate on record as favoring a certain position. It says: It is the sense of the Senate that . . . Prior to the deposit of instruments of ratification, the Administration shall certify to the Senate that with regard to non-strategic nuclear weapons (i) it is the policy of the United States to work with the Russian Federation to increase transparency, exchange data, increase warhead security, and facilitate weapon dismantlement. . . . It is hard for me to understand what kind of argument our colleagues can make against that general proposition. It is further stated that it is our policy that discussions toward these ends need to be initiated with the Russian Federation. Mr. President, one of the arguments I have heard people present in opposition to this is that, sure, it may be a decent amendment, but it is not appropriate to consider it in the context of NATO enlargement. I think just the contrary is the case, because clearly NATO enlargement can only be justified if it adds to our security in the European theater. This amendment will do more to add to our security in the European theater than the expansion of NATO that is now contemplated. For that reason, I think it is appropriate that we move ahead, that we vote for this amendment. Quite frankly, I have great difficulty understanding why it cannot be accepted by all parties. It clearly states a position I believe the American people strongly believe in, which is that we need to do more to press the Russians to reduce their tactical nuclear weapons arsenal, and I hope very much we will do that in the very near future. I appreciate the time that has been yielded, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I believe there are 15 minutes reserved on my side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will respond. I did not yet. But I at this time ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the 13 seconds. I still reserve the 5 minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much of the 10 minutes is still available?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I assume that part of what is being considered in this review of the strategic concept is the role that nuclear weapons would play in the future of NATO, where those weapons might be stationed, what the policy of NATO would be in the use of weapons. All of these are factors that I think would be very important for new members to know before they apply for membership and would be important for us to know before we agree to expand and expand and expand. Every time a member comes into NATO, we are committing U.S. forces to defend that territory. I understand that. I think it is just appropriate that we have some caution in committing U.S. forces to defend more and more and more territory, and that is the purpose of the amendment--just to understand where we are before we keep moving ahead.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just make clear what I intend by this amendment and what I think the language of it says. As much as I like to think that the U.S. Senate is all powerful, we are, in NATO, only one of the members. NATO is an entire organization. The United States and the other members have set about to develop this revised strategic concept. As I understand the history of this, in July of last year, in Madrid, there was agreed upon--NATO Ministers agreed at that time to develop a revised strategic concept, which would be presented to them in their planned summit of April of 1999. What my amendment says is that until such time as the North Atlantic Council agrees on a revised strategic concept, whatever it is, for NATO, then we will not go ahead. At least the U.S. position is that we should not go ahead and participate in inviting new members. So I am talking about a very formal procedure here which is well underway. It was agreed to in July of last year in Madrid. As I understand it, it is a three-stage process for conducting the review of the strategic concept. That three-stage process is well underway. There is no indication that I have seen that these deadlines will not be met. In fact, I have heard from people in the administration that they expect the revised strategic concept to be ready this summer, not in April of next year. So all I am saying is, let's figure out what NATO's purposes are and what its mission is before we take on additional members after we do these three. So this is not an effort to delay, this is not an effort to postpone for 3 years, or 5 years, or indefinitely. I say, quite frankly, if we don't have agreement among the Council members, the Ministers of NATO, as to what the mission of NATO is, if we can't get agreement in the next period of time, then we should have it come back to us, and we ought to start thinking about how much more enlargement we want to do. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. The third concern that I wish to address is whether the United States, in signing the Baltic charter, has ``pre-committed'' to support Baltic membership in NATO in the future. The Resolution, as modified, contains a provision to the effect that, other than Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, the United States has not consented or committed to invite any other country to join NATO in the future. My understanding of this provision is that it reflects the fact that the Baltic Charter of Partnership does not constitute a U.S. pre-commitment to NATO membership for the Baltics, and that presently the United States has not consented or committed to support NATO membership for any European state (other than Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic) that may seek to accede to NATO. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Second is the issue of U.S. security commitments. The NATO resolution contains a provision stating that only ``a consensus decision by the full membership of NATO, approved by the national procedures of each NATO member * * * will constitute a security commitment pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty.'' This means that a political document, like the Baltic Charter, which has not been approved by the Senate pursuant to constitutional treaty-making process, does not constitute a U.S. security commitment to the Baltic states. Is my understanding of that provision correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I have voiced a number of concerns with regard to the Administration's open-door policy on NATO enlargement, and in particular the implementation of that policy with regard to the Baltic states. Over the last few days, the Administration and Sen. Biden and his staff have worked closely with myself and my staff to address my concerns. I wish to confirm with Sen. Biden and Sen. Helms that my understanding of certain provisions in the NATO resolution, as modified by the Manager's Amendment, is correct. First, there is the issue of consultations with the Senate. I understand that the Resolution, as clarified by the Manager's Amendment, states that the Senate will be consulted prior to the U.S. consenting to invite any European state to begin accession talks with NATO, as was done for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic at Madrid last year. This would apply for the Baltic states, and for any other European state seeking admission to NATO. Is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me just sum up my position. I do not think the amendment by the Senator from Arizona is related to this. That is a statement by the U.S. Senate as to what we think ought to be in the revised strategic concept. It is not a statement by the Council, NATO Council, as to what ought to be in there. I think it is important that we get agreement among our NATO allies as to what is in this strategic concept before we go ahead to invite new members. That is what my amendment says. Unless someone intends that we invite new members in the next 11 months, there is no delay involved in this. So I hope very much my colleagues will approve the amendment and add it to the treaty. I yield the floor and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would like to use an additional 1 minute of my time. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the members of NATO are engaged today in revising and updating the so-called strategic concept of NATO. We are part of this ongoing review. It was agreed to in July of last year in Madrid, by the Council, that this revision of the strategic concept would take place, and they set out a three-stage process to do it. They are well into that process now. The idea behind it was that the new, revised strategic concept will be presented next April at the Ministers meeting. My amendment says that after the admission of Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic, it will be the policy of the United States not to invite other members to come into NATO until that revised strategic concept has been agreed to by the Council, by the NATO Council. To my mind, this is not a radical proposal in any respect. It is exactly the process that is intended to take place. It is very important, I believe, for ourselves to know what the new mission is and to have agreement on what the new strategic concept is before we take on new members and commit to defend their territory. Of course, I think it is also very important that the new members who would like to become part of NATO understand precisely what this strategic concept is before they sign on to participate in it. So that is the amendment. There is no great mystery about it. It is not intended to subvert anything, to delay anything. It has absolutely no effect on the question of whether Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary should be admitted into NATO at this time. But it does say before we go beyond that, we should get this strategic concept agreed to. It is intended that that happen next year. I have every reason to believe it will happen next year. It is important that it happen before we begin to invite others to join NATO after these three countries. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to co-sponsor this important legislation introduced by my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of an interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. As I am sure all senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and operated as a Tribal Park. Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four Corners region. The bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to contribute $2 million toward the construction of a much needed interpretive center for visitors. Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a short distance from the Four Corners. Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2,000 feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t'ai or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they named it Shiprock. The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre- Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than 800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably all this was accomplished without metal tools or the wheel. Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place. New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate economic development throughout the region. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to co-sponsor this important legislation introduced by my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of an interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. As I am sure all senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and operated as a Tribal Park. Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four Corners region. The bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to contribute $2 million toward the construction of a much needed interpretive center for visitors. Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a short distance from the Four Corners. Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2,000 feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t'ai or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they named it Shiprock. The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre- Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than 800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably all this was accomplished without metal tools or the wheel. Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place. New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate economic development throughout the region. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my friend from Virginia for his leadership on this important issue. As I indicated earlier, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment that he is offering and hope we can gain the support of colleagues on that as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express serious concerns about this proposal to enlarge NATO. The question of whether we admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO needs to be judged in the overall context of our security needs in this post-cold war period. Today's security environment is uncertain and vastly different from the climate of the cold war for which the NATO alliance was created. New threats dominate our national security agenda. The new threats are well known to all of us. They are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and regional instability created by rogue states in the Middle East or northeast Asia, the specter of accidental nuclear launch and other high priority military threats. Those are the immediate security concerns which we have. Yet, when I look at the national security threats that we have, it does not strike me that enlarging NATO is likely to help us meet those threats. An important distinction was made by Dr. Kissinger, a former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, between the role of a military alliance and a collective security system. Dr. Kissinger--who, by the way, is a supporter of NATO enlargement--stressed that NATO is a military alliance which is established for the purpose of defending a specified area. In contrast, a collective security system or agreement is formed in response to aggression on a case-by-case basis. It does not maintain forces of its own and it is not restricted to defending a particular geographical area. We need to ask ourselves which of these two types of organizations enhances our security more: Expanding a military alliance that was formed to defend the territory of its members against a Soviet threat that no longer exists--that is one option which is the one before us, unfortunately--or, on the contrary, pursuing collective security arrangements designed to meet today's threats. I am concerned that this near-sighted emphasis on NATO enlargement may increase rather than decrease our threat to security interest in Europe. At best, NATO enlargement is a distraction in that it diverts our attention from other higher priority concerns and alternative solutions, and, at worst, it could undermine our ability to address these more immediate priority military threats and perhaps reduce the cohesiveness of the NATO alliance upon which we have depended. Which one it results in will largely depend on how we address the long-term risks of NATO enlargement, how this open-ended process becomes limited, and what its impact is upon the cooperative efforts between the U.S. and Russia to enhance our security mutually, the security of the U.S. and of Russia, in the spirit of partnership. If we proceed with NATO enlargement, we must ensure that we do not erode our ability to meet our highest priority security concerns or preclude alternative collective security arrangements that may more effectively address these concerns. Mr. President, I am considering introducing several amendments to the Senate resolution on the protocols regarding the accession of Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic. These amendments are intended to safeguard against some of the potential long-term risks associated with NATO enlargement. First, let me express support for Senator Warner's amendment to establish a 3-year moratorium on further rounds of NATO enlargement. I am an original cosponsor of that amendment. NATO membership for Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic cannot be separated from the larger issue of the administration's seemingly open-door policy for enlarging NATO. According to the administration, any state of Central or Eastern Europe that meets certain democratic criteria is a potential candidate for NATO membership. Altogether there are nearly a dozen countries that are or may be candidates for NATO membership in the coming years. Included in that group are the three Baltic States, Slovenia, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Macedonia. I support the goal of integrating Central and Eastern Europe into a united and democratic Europe free of the divisive legacy of the cold war. But the question is, how do we achieve that goal? In this regard I have some serious concerns about the administration's open-door policy on enlarging NATO. There are some fundamental questions that remain unanswered. We do not know whether these three candidate countries, the three we are considering in this resolution, are militarily and economically prepared to contribute to NATO's common defense. As several of the speakers this afternoon have mentioned, cost estimates for enlargement vary widely. The burdensharing arrangements within NATO are still unresolved. NATO itself is still revising its post-cold war strategic mission. At a minimum, I believe we in the Senate, if we proceed with expanding the Atlantic alliance, it is in America's and NATO's interest to take the time to fully assess the effects, both the costs and the benefits, of this round of expansion. A 3-year pause, as suggested in Senator Warner's amendment, would give alliance members a reasonable time to do this. If things go according to NATO's plan, then alliance members, both the new ones and the old ones, will have updated NATO's strategic military mission well within that time frame. A pause would allow cost-sharing arrangements to be reached and payments to be received. Let me turn to a few other issues that I intend to deal with by proposed amendment, Mr. President. Currently, the NATO resolution contains language intended to require the President to consult the Senate prior to consenting to invite any additional states to join NATO. I commend the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for including that provision. It ensures that the Senate will be a partner in any decision to invite a state to begin accession talks with NATO. We should have had such a provision in place before we got to this situation with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. But I intend to introduce an amendment that I believe complements and strengthens the provision that is now coming to the Senate floor. This amendment would require the President to report to Congress on the qualifications of any country being considered for NATO membership prior to the United States consenting to invite that country to begin accession talks with NATO as was done with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in Madrid last year. The amendment further specifies the kind of detailed information to be provided, including each potential candidate's military preparedness to join NATO, the costs and burdensharing arrangements for integrating each potential candidate into NATO, and the impact that admitting each potential candidate would have on NATO's cohesiveness and other priority U.S. security concerns. The second issue that I believe needs to be addressed by amendment relates to the strategic mission of NATO. Right now we in the Senate are being called upon to sign up to a policy of enlarging the alliance without a clear, coherent explanation of how expansion of NATO will serve NATO's strategic interests. I am concerned because NATO itself does not seem to have an agreed upon strategic military mission. For several months now, NATO members have been engaged in updating the alliance strategic concept. The current concept, which was last revised in 1991, is outdated, and all agree on that. It fails to take account of such critical events as the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO'S peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, or more recently the special relationships that NATO has established with Russia and the Ukraine. NATO is currently debating administration proposals to expand the alliance's military charter to include operations in the Middle East and North Africa, a subject of considerable controversy for existing and prospective members alike. The alliance will also be reviewing its critically important nuclear policies. The updated strategic concept will not be completed by the time the Senate is expected to vote on this round of enlargement. My amendment would withhold inviting additional countries other than Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for NATO membership until after NATO has approved a revised strategic concept. This is simply a matter of setting our priorities. NATO members need to decide on the alliance's mission before any new candidates are asked to join. Future candidates need to know what obligations they would be undertaking in seeking NATO membership. This should not cause a delay for anyone. The expectation is that this revised strategic concept will be completed this summer. Once a revised Strategic Concept is agreed, existing and prospective NATO members will be able to judge for themselves whether further expansion will in the long-run strengthen--or undermine--NATO's effectiveness in fulfilling its mission. The third issue that I believe needs to be addressed before we conclude action on this proposed ratification of this treaty relates to the critical question of NATO membership for the Baltic States. The administration has repeatedly welcomed the aspiration of the Baltic States--Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia--to join NATO, most recently in signing a charter of partnership with those states this past January. At the same time the administration tells us that this charter is neither a precommitment by the United States to NATO membership for the Baltic States, nor is it a backdoor U.S. security commitment to those states. I believe it is critical that we be clear on the Senate's understanding of the Baltic Charter for the record. I am considering an amendment stating that the Baltic Charter neither precommits the United States to Baltic membership in NATO nor provides those states with U.S. security commitments. In addition, the NATO resolution must also be clear that it is essential for the administration to consult with the Senate well in advance of any vote in the North Atlantic Council to invite a Baltic state to begin accession talks with NATO. Our military commitments must be tailored to our national security priorities. An open-door policy for enlarging NATO will mean further expanding U.S. security commitments. At the heart of NATO is the mutual commitment under article V of the North Atlantic Treaty to the common defense of all NATO members in the case of attack. Since the end of the cold war, even as our armed forces have been reduced by a third, our security commitments have extended to Bosnia and Iraq and Northeast Asia and other hot spots around the globe. As we consider setting an open-ended course for expanding our military commitments, we must keep in mind that our defense resources are limited. I question whether we are prepared to allocate limited defense resources to ever-expanding NATO military commitments ahead of our other defense priorities, priorities such as force modernization, readiness, or investment in research and development needed to preserve our technological edge. I am particularly concerned about U.S. and NATO preparedness to meet these article V commitments if the Baltic States are invited to join NATO. If the United States and its allies are not prepared to meet our article V commitments to the common defense of all NATO members, then expansion could create alliance-threatening divisions within NATO. Mr. President, I do not propose to preclude the possibility of Baltic membership in NATO sometime in the future. But any invitation to the Baltic States would be a serious step that should first be thoroughly considered with the Senate's participation. In any case, Senate consent to ratification of the current protocols for Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic should in no way be interpreted as a preapproval of the Baltic States candidacy for NATO membership. One final issue I want to raise today concerns continued U.S. support for the enhancement of NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative. Some have argued that if the Senate does not go along with NATO enlargement, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will be abandoned in ``strategic ambiguity,'' exiled to a no-man's-land between NATO and Russia. I do not accept this view. An alternative already exists in NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative. In this initiative, there are 28 partner countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, including Russia, associating themselves with NATO. This initiative is an essential element to current and future peace and security in Europe extending to central Asia. Experts on both sides of this NATO enlargement issue agree on the need for a strong Partnership for Peace. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, an advocate of NATO enlargement, testified before the Armed Services Committee on this very need to ensure that the Partnership for Peace initiative is not undermined in the process of expanding the alliance. He stated, ``The Partnership for Peace should receive attention comparable to that accorded to enlargement. The experience of PFP membership should closely resemble the experience of NATO partnership.'' So the amendment that I intend to offer on this issue would be a declaration of support for the Partnership for Peace intended to place the NATO resolution in an important context; that is, the complementary effectiveness of the Partnership for Peace initiative. This amendment would declare that PFP is both an essential and enduring complement to the NATO alliance in maintaining and enhancing regional security. It would also endorse NATO efforts to enhance PFP, to strengthen its political consultative mechanism through the Euro- Atlantic Partnership Council, to expand the operational role of the PFP, and to provide for increased participation of Partner countries in decision-making and planning within PFP. Many of these objectives are the same ones voiced in favor of NATO enlargement. I am concerned about contentions that the whole purpose of PFP is to prepare Partner countries for future NATO membership. For a significant number of PFP Partners, that simply isn't their primary purpose in participating. It is essential that PFP continue to be valued as an independent component of the European security system and not be reduced or constrained to being a prelude to NATO membership. Accordingly, my amendment would also clarify that PFP membership does not in any way prejudice a country's application or consideration for admission to the NATO alliance. I would note that, in contrast to NATO enlargement, Russian reaction to PFP is increasingly positive. While it has been a PFP Partner since the initiative began in 1994, Russia is now completing its first-ever Individual Partnership Plan, detailing the specific activities in which it intends to participate over the next few years. These include eleven PFP exercises, including one on its own territory. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully the long- term risks associated with NATO enlargement. The Senate must be an active partner in any future decision to invite further rounds of candidates for NATO membership. In the meantime, we need to focus our efforts on meeting our top military security priorities. We must ensure that NATO enlargement does not undermine our ability to address our most pressing security concerns. But I believe we should reserve higher priority for our cooperative efforts with Russia to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons under START I, to secure Duma ratification of START II, and to advance discussions on further reductions of nuclear weapons under a START III framework. The cooperation between the national laboratories in my state of New Mexico and their counterparts in Russia remains critically important to the pressing problem of nonproliferation. In addition, the United States needs to engage Russia in a dialogue on additional joint steps beyond START to reduce the nuclear threat. In summary, our primary security goal must be to promote a safe and stable security environment for the United States, our NATO allies, and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, including Russia. No further enlargement of NATO should be considered unless and until it can be clearly demonstrated that such a step serves this goal. We need to proceed cautiously, with clear priorities and thorough consideration of all options--whether NATO, the Partnership for Peace, or other security arrangements--for promoting the security and safety of the North Atlantic area as a whole.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Monahan, a fellow in my office, be allowed the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this NATO enlargement resolution.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from Virginia by saying that is my understanding. I have yet to speak to any high official in the Russian Government who felt this would be helpful, that us going ahead with this resolution particularly at this time would be helpful in bringing Russia along to ratify START II or to take any other actions that would be helpful in reducing the nuclear threat.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to respond.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment that I am proposing at the desk, or should I send it to the desk?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank my colleague from Kentucky. This amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Chafee. It is bipartisan. It is an important bipartisan issue. We have always before, at least since the national goal was established in 1989, found excuses to not do anything to follow up and achieve the goal. This time we need to go ahead and commit some Federal resources to help local school districts solve this problem. This amendment is a step in that direction. I hope very much that people will support the amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to begin to focus national attention and some resources on the problem of students who drop out of school before they complete high school. In 1989, when President Bush and the 50 Governors met and set some national education goals for the country, one of those goals was that we would have at least 90 percent of our students complete high school before they left school. At that time, 86 percent of our students were completing high school before they left. Today, it continues to be 86 percent. We have done absolutely nothing to reach this very important national goal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I feel very honored today to rise with my colleague, Senator Domenici, to introduce legislation to honor Representative Steven H. Schiff, who died last month. This bill names the Auditorium in the Technology Transfer Center at Sandia National Laboratories as the Steven H. Schiff Auditorium. I have visited Sandia's Technology Transfer Center (TTC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is a beautiful building dedicated to furthering collaborations between the fine staff of scientists and engineers at Sandia and their counterparts in American universities and industry. It is altogether fitting that we dedicate the TTC Auditorium to the memory of Steven Schiff. Steve was a strong champion of collaborations and making the resources of our national laboratories available to US industry to help us compete in the global economy. Mr. President, Sandia National Laboratories has 6,000 employees. The lab is one of the nation's premier national security facilities with major responsibilities for our nation's energy research and development projects. Part of Sandia's mission includes technology transfer. The emphasis is on partnerships between industry and the lab to collaborate on emerging new technologies. Today, Sandia's vast technical expertise is being applied to solve a variety of technical problems that will benefit working Americans. A number of exciting collaborations between Sandia's engineers and private industry have come about as a direct result of Steve's efforts. Some of these collaborations include projects to improve microelectronics and computers, airline and airport safety, lightweight materials for automobiles, robots for advanced manufacturing, and automobile tires that are safer and provide consumers better fuel economy. Madam President, I could go on and on. Perhaps the one area of Sandia's work that Steve was the most proud of was the lab's application of its 20 years of experience in state-of- the-art physical security technologies to the important areas of fighting crime and terrorism. Today, Sandia's vital and highly visible programs are helping to assure the safety and security of every American. In particular, Steve's efforts were instrumental in creating a satellite facility of the National Institute of Justice at Sandia. This linkage was especially satisfying to Steve because of his leadership positions on both the House Science and Judiciary Committees. In a short time, Sandia's efforts for the Department of Justice and the FBI are helping to combat crime and terrorism. These programs are having a major impact on the safety and security of all Americans. These efforts are truly one of Steve Schiff's greatest legacies to New Mexico and the nation. I'd like to cite just a few examples of Sandia's programs for the National Institute of Justice. Because of Steve's efforts, Sandia was able to play a vital role in disarming a bomb left in the unabomber's cabin. Sandia also has a school safety and security program that has dramatically increased the safety of high school students in Belen, New Mexico. I had a chance to visit the school, and it is truly remarkable what Sandia has accomplished there. Another example of Sandia's innovative technologies is the development of a ``smart gun'' that can only be fired in the hands of someone authorized to use it. And Sandia is developing explosive detectors for increased airport security and new ways of detecting illegal drugs. Perhaps the culmination of Steve's efforts was last August, when 64 of the world's top bomb squads came to Operation Albuquerque '97 for hands-on experience with the latest science and methods for disabling terrorist bombs. Madam President, using our national laboratories' unique resources to save lives and protect the safety of ordinary people is surely a proper memorial for Steve Schiff. Naming the auditorium at Sandia National Laboratories in his honor is another. I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation, and I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I feel very honored today to rise with my colleague, Senator Domenici, to introduce legislation to honor Representative Steven H. Schiff, who died last month. This bill names the Auditorium in the Technology Transfer Center at Sandia National Laboratories as the Steven H. Schiff Auditorium. I have visited Sandia's Technology Transfer Center (TTC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is a beautiful building dedicated to furthering collaborations between the fine staff of scientists and engineers at Sandia and their counterparts in American universities and industry. It is altogether fitting that we dedicate the TTC Auditorium to the memory of Steven Schiff. Steve was a strong champion of collaborations and making the resources of our national laboratories available to US industry to help us compete in the global economy. Mr. President, Sandia National Laboratories has 6,000 employees. The lab is one of the nation's premier national security facilities with major responsibilities for our nation's energy research and development projects. Part of Sandia's mission includes technology transfer. The emphasis is on partnerships between industry and the lab to collaborate on emerging new technologies. Today, Sandia's vast technical expertise is being applied to solve a variety of technical problems that will benefit working Americans. A number of exciting collaborations between Sandia's engineers and private industry have come about as a direct result of Steve's efforts. Some of these collaborations include projects to improve microelectronics and computers, airline and airport safety, lightweight materials for automobiles, robots for advanced manufacturing, and automobile tires that are safer and provide consumers better fuel economy. Madam President, I could go on and on. Perhaps the one area of Sandia's work that Steve was the most proud of was the lab's application of its 20 years of experience in state-of- the-art physical security technologies to the important areas of fighting crime and terrorism. Today, Sandia's vital and highly visible programs are helping to assure the safety and security of every American. In particular, Steve's efforts were instrumental in creating a satellite facility of the National Institute of Justice at Sandia. This linkage was especially satisfying to Steve because of his leadership positions on both the House Science and Judiciary Committees. In a short time, Sandia's efforts for the Department of Justice and the FBI are helping to combat crime and terrorism. These programs are having a major impact on the safety and security of all Americans. These efforts are truly one of Steve Schiff's greatest legacies to New Mexico and the nation. I'd like to cite just a few examples of Sandia's programs for the National Institute of Justice. Because of Steve's efforts, Sandia was able to play a vital role in disarming a bomb left in the unabomber's cabin. Sandia also has a school safety and security program that has dramatically increased the safety of high school students in Belen, New Mexico. I had a chance to visit the school, and it is truly remarkable what Sandia has accomplished there. Another example of Sandia's innovative technologies is the development of a ``smart gun'' that can only be fired in the hands of someone authorized to use it. And Sandia is developing explosive detectors for increased airport security and new ways of detecting illegal drugs. Perhaps the culmination of Steve's efforts was last August, when 64 of the world's top bomb squads came to Operation Albuquerque '97 for hands-on experience with the latest science and methods for disabling terrorist bombs. Madam President, using our national laboratories' unique resources to save lives and protect the safety of ordinary people is surely a proper memorial for Steve Schiff. Naming the auditorium at Sandia National Laboratories in his honor is another. I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation, and I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his efforts.