On the recordJune 11, 1997
I offer this on behalf of myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. Mr. Speaker, there are differing views about NATO expansion. There is, I think, great agreement in this Chamber that the cost of NATO expansion should not be paid in the same formula in which existing and past NATO costs have been paid. As Members mentioned, NATO grew out of a time when the United States had a degree of superiority in the world as a result of World War II that was unparalleled probably in recent history. America was quite generous in helping bring, among others, our European allies and our former European enemies, it should not be forgotten, up to the current level that they now enjoy. But we believe, and I think it is a widely shared sentiment across this House, that it is no longer appropriate for our European allies to accept a subsidy in the form of disproportionately large payments by the United States. What this motion to recommit says is that we believe that the increased NATO costs that will come from expansion, there will have to be military standardization and communication upgrades, that to the extent they are borne by existing NATO members, the European members of NATO should pick up the bulk of those costs. In other words, we are not here trying to impose more costs on the new NATO members.
Source
govinfo.gov




