Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. That is right. Exactly. Why is that? Because England, France, and all of these countries' forces are modernized. They are fully integrated into NATO. Those are the three countries that are going to have a lot of money for interoperability, command, communications, force structures. That is where the money is going to go. I didn't want to say anything about the other countries. I don't think it is necessary for these other countries because we are not going to be involved in that kind of expenditure. That is why I limited it specifically to those three countries and why I respectfully demur from the Senator's comments that we could not be involved in other aspects of NATO beyond the 25 percent. We absolutely could. That is why I want to focus on those three countries only because that is where the money is going to be spent for force structure and modernization. I don't believe we ought to give a blank check.

Mr. HARKIN. That is all.

Mr. HARKIN. I am talking only about subsidies to the national military budgets, the national expenses of those three countries to meet their national commitments.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I respond to the Senator from Delaware. Again, what he is basically arguing for is giving a blank check to the American people. I disagree with the Senator on the point that he just said about conventional structure. We are talking about three countries. My amendment only mentions three countries. It mentions Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. It is just those three countries that we are talking about and about their national costs. There may be other arrangements in Europe. There may be other structures in which we are engaged that are not covered by this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. But I am losing a lot of time; if the Senator would help me by yielding back some time.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the correction of the Senator from West Virginia. Back to my point; the Senator from Delaware is right. If this amendment had been in effect 40 years ago, we couldn't have been in Greece. But that was during the cold war. That is when we were facing the Soviet Union. That is when we were facing, if I might say to the Senator from Delaware, facing a Europe that was on its knees, busted, broke, basically decapitated from World War II. There is no way that they could have done it on their own. That is why I say with this whole NATO argument that it just seems to me we are arguing about a world that existed 50 years ago. The Senator from Delaware in his impassioned pleas is arguing for a situation that no longer exists. Europe is powerful. Europe is wealthy, and the nations' GNPs are going up. There is no Soviet Union. There is no external threat like Greece was facing. Europe has been rebuilt. The cold war is over. Let's look ahead. What I am saying is that I don't believe, in the context of a Europe that we see now and in the foreseeable future, that our taxpayers ought to be liable for the national costs anymore in excess of what they are liable right now for the common costs. That is what this amendment says. Very simply, it says very forthrightly, ``Any future United States subsidy of the national expenses of Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic to meet its NATO commitments, including the assistance described in subparagraph (c), may not exceed 25 percent of all assistance provided to that country by all NATO members.'' When it comes to tanks, planes, or anything else, of course, we can still sell them. They can still buy from us. But our subsidy to this national effort cannot be more than 25 percent of the total amount of subsidies by all of the countries for that national effort----

Mr. HARKIN. Under the Constitution, they become the law of the land.

Mr. HARKIN. I will not argue constitutional principles with the Senator from West Virginia, I know that. But treaties under--I forget the article--treaties become the law of the land.

Mr. HARKIN. I will not argue constitutional principles with the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. HARKIN. Portions.

Mr. HARKIN. Portions.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I think the arguments, if I might respectfully say so, of the Senator from Delaware are arguments that we would have heard on the Senate floor in the 1950s and the 1960s and the 1970s. The Senator's arguments pertain to a world that no longer exists in Europe. The Senator talks about Greece, that if this amendment had been in effect 30 years ago, 40 years ago, we could not have done in Greece what we did. The Senator is right. But this is not 40 years ago.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will let me finish, I never interrupted him.

Mr. HARKIN. After a treaty is signed. And keep in mind, treaties override the Constitution of the United States. Once those decisions are made, we are going to have to meet, as the Senator from Virginia said, our moral obligations.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will get back to this amendment. I respectfully suggest that the Senator from Delaware, again, is making my point in two ways. What the Senator from Delaware has said is that the costs of the taxpayers of this country are going to increase in the future. We don't know how much, but that is what he said. It is going to increase. Listen carefully--

Mr. HARKIN. It is talking about the subsidy. It is not talking about what we spend ourselves in terms of our own military. It is talking about what subsidy we provide to these countries.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with all due respect, I don't think the Senator read my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator is making my point. My friend from Delaware is making my point. We are limited to 25 percent of the common budgets. All of the cost estimates we keep hearing about only deal with the common budgets. We don't talk about the national budget. What my amendment says is what is good for one side ought to be good for the other. We are not mixing the two. We are applying a good, sound principle. If 25 percent is good for the common budgets, it ought to be good for the national budgets. That is what my amendment says. It says to the American people, look, you are right, we don't know what it is going to cost us in the future. The Senator just stated that. He said that we don't know what it may cost us in the future. What this amendment says is that at no time will the portion of the national budgets of these countries or any other new members of NATO be more than 25 percent, so that if some cost comes in at $10 billion, our share, the share of the American people, will be no more than 25 percent. The other nations of NATO will have to kick in their proportionate share, also. That is why I drafted this amendment. People don't understand the difference between the common budgets and the national budgets. We keep hearing from the Clinton administration that this is only going to cost us $400 million--as I pointed out, we already promised as much as $1.069 billion in loans and subsidies to Eastern and Central Europe-- because they are talking about the common budgets, not about the national budgets of these countries. The Senator from Delaware is exactly right. My amendment seeks to say that no more than 25 percent of those would be paid for by the American taxpayers. I would think the Senator would support that.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HARKIN. I had 1 hour.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to respond, but I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, wait a second. I do not think the answer is yes. What GAO said is NATO enlargement could entail costs in addition to those countries in the Partnership for Peace, for example, others who may not be invited to NATO but because of the enlargement of NATO there may be other costs incidental and associated with it. That is what they are saying. Does the Senator say absolutely there will be no other costs associated to PFP countries when NATO is enlarged?