Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Paul Gallis of CRS be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on NATO.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we now commence a very important debate on the NATO treaty. On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I am pleased to bring the protocols of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 to the floor for the Senate's consideration and ratification. The protocols extending membership to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were signed on March 26, 2003, and were transmitted by President Bush to the Senate on April 10, 2003. The accession of these countries to the NATO Alliance is a tremendous accomplishment. It deserves the full support of the Senate and the governments of the other 18 NATO members. The Foreign Relations Committee has held 10 hearings on NATO since 1999. Five of these hearings were held during the last 2 months, as we prepared for this debate on the Senate floor. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave its unanimous approval to the resolution of ratification. I especially thank Senator Joseph Biden for his assistance in moving NATO expansion forward and for his insightful participation in the wider debate on NATO policy. The resolution of ratification before us today reflects our mutual efforts to construct a bipartisan resolution that could be broadly supported by the Senate. During the course of the committee's consideration of the Protocols of Accession for these seven nations to join NATO, we received testimony from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith, and United States Ambassador to NATO Nick Burns. Each expressed strong support for NATO expansion. In addition to efforts undertaken in the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Levin and Warner and the Committee on Armed Services conducted two hearings examining the military implications of the treaty and shared an analysis of their findings with us. This letter has been made a part of the Record and our committee report. When NATO was founded in 1949, its purpose was to defend Western democracies against the Soviet Union. But the demise of the Soviet Union diminished the significance of NATO's mission. We began to debate where NATO should go and what NATO should do. In early 1993, I delivered a speech calling for NATO not only to enlarge, but also to prepare to go ``out of area.'' At that time, many people were skeptical about enlarging NATO's size and mission. Those of us who believed in NATO enlargement prevailed in that debate. And I believe that events have proven us right. As we consider this new enlargement, it is clear that the last round has been highly beneficial. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic are among the most dynamic countries in Europe. They are deeply interested in alliance matters, and they have sought to maximize their contribution to collective security. The prospect of NATO membership gave these countries the incentive to accelerate reforms, to settle disputes, and cooperate with their neighbors. Their success, in turn, has been a strong incentive for democratization and peace among Europe's other aspiring countries. Many observers will point to the split over Iraq as a sign that NATO is failing or irrelevant. I disagree. Any alliance requires constant maintenance and adjustment, and NATO is no exception. The United States has more at stake and more in common with Europe than with any other part of the world. These common interests and shared values will sustain the alliance if governments realize the incredible resource that NATO represents. As the leader of NATO, we have no intention of shirking our commitment to Europe. But as we attempt to mend the alliance's political divisions over Iraq, we must go one step further and ask, if NATO had been united on Iraq, could it have provided an effective command structure for the military operation that is underway now? And would allies, beyond those currently engaged in Iraq, have been willing and able to field forces that would have been significant to the outcome of the war? In other words, achieving political unity within the alliance, while important to international opinion, does not guarantee that NATO will be meaningful as a fighting alliance in the war on terror. In the coming years, NATO will have a decide if it wants to participate in the security challenge of our time. If we do not prevent major terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, the alliance will have failed in the most fundamental sense of defending our nations and our way of life. This reality demands that as we depend NATO, we also retool NATO, so that it can be a mechanism of burden sharing and mutual security in the war on terrorism. America is at war, and we feel more vulnerable than at any time since the end of the cold war and perhaps since World War II. We need allies to confront this threat effectively, and those alliances cannot be circumscribed by geographic boundaries. In our committee hearings on NATO, we have heard encouraging testimony that our allies are taking promised steps to strengthen their capabilities in such areas as heavy airlift and sealift and precision- guided munitions. We also have heard that the seven candidates for membership are developing niche military capabilities that would be useful in meeting NATO's new military demands. But clearly, much work is left to be done to transform NATO into a bulwark against terrorism. An early test will be NATO's contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian duties in the aftermath of combat in Iraq. A strong commitment by NATO nations to this role would be an important step in healing the alliance divisions and reaffirming its relevance for the long run. The Resolution of Ratification we are considering today includes nine declarations and three conditions. I will review each of these provisions for the benefit of the Senate: Declaration 1 reaffirms that membership in NATO remains a vital national security interest of the United States. Declaration 2 lays out the strategic rationale for NATO enlargement. Declaration 3 emphasizes that upon completion of the accession process, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia will have all the rights, privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and protections of full NATO members. Declaration 4 emphasizes the importance of European integration. Declaration 5 reiterates NATO's ``open door'' policy, and declares that the seven new countries will not be the last invited to join the alliance. Declaration 6 expresses the Senate's support for the Partnership for Peace. Declaration 7 expresses support for the NATO-Russia Council established at the Prague Summit, but reinforces the Senate's view that Russia does not have a veto or vote on NATO policy. Declaration 8 declares that the seven candidate countries have implemented mechanisms for the compensation of victims of the Holocaust and of Communism. Declaration 9 states that the committee has maintained the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate in the treaty-making process. Condition 1 requires the President to reaffirm understandings on the costs, benefits, and military implications of NATO enlargement. Condition 2 requires the President to submit a report to the Congressional Intelligence Committees on the progress of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in meeting NATO security sector and security vetting standards. Finally, Condition 3 requires the President to certify to Congress that each of the governments of the seven candidate countries is fully cooperating with the U.S. efforts to obtain the fullest accounting of captured and missing U.S. personnel from previous conflicts and the Cold War. When President Bush made his first trip to Europe 2 years ago, he strongly voiced the U.S. commitment to Europe generally and to NATO in particular. Now at a moment when relations with some of our European allies are strained, a clear showing of bipartisan support for NATO enlargement takes on added importance. The affirming message of the first round of enlargement led to improved capabilities and strengthened transatlantic ties. I am confident that this second round will do the same. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution of ratification. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. We are pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, as much as he would require.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides during the quorum call.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I agree with the analysis of history given by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, with regard to the basic exclusion--or rather consensus and exclusion argument we are having today. He states correctly this arose the last time we discussed NATO accession. It is an important argument that has been propounded by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and others. I simply rise to say the substance of the issue is different from the procedure. In this amendment offered by the distinguished Senators, we are discussing an amendment that says: It is the sense of the Senate that, not later than the date that is eighteen months after the date of the adoption of this resolution, the President should place on the agenda for discussion at the North Atlantic Council-- (i) the NATO ``consensus rule''; and (ii) the merits of establishing a process for suspending the membership in NATO of a member country that no longer complies with NATO's principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law set forth in the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty. The amendment also calls for reports on the points of view raised by our Government and, likewise, its fulfillment, with the gist of this amendment. At the time we had Secretary Powell before the Foreign Relations Committee in one of the five hearings the committee has conducted on NATO, we requested his view on the subject of consensus and expulsion. In fact, I requested a letter from Secretary Powell, which he sent to me, and made clear as a matter of principle NATO's decisionmaking process in his judgment works well and serves the United States interests. The Secretary affirmed that for 50 years, from the cold war to Kosovo and now Afghanistan, NATO has been able to reach consensus on critical decisions. NATO is an alliance, and no NATO member, including the United States, would agree to allow alliance decisions to be made on defense commitments without its agreement. Regarding the suspension mechanism, the Secretary said NATO has been able to deal successfully with the rare cases in the past of problem countries, and NATO has dealt effectively with Allies that have experienced regimes that did not support NATO's democratic principles by isolating them or excluding them from sensitive discussions--just as the Senator from Delaware has illustrated. I would add that when, at Senator Levin's request, these issues were raised by Ambassador Burns in an informal discussion within the alliance, there was no support from other members for creating a suspension mechanism or for changing the consensus rule. Essentially, the administration preference, when we asked them with regard to this idea, is that these issues not be addressed in the resolution of ratification and certainly that they not be termed as a condition. The authors of the amendment today have not done so. This is not a condition. Therefore, there is not an argument with the administration. The Secretary believes the questions are worthy of further study, and so do I. My own view, having listened to the testimony by Secretary Powell and then as Senator Biden suggested more recently, a visit in the Foreign Relations Committee with Secretary General Robertson of NATO and with our Ambassador, Nick Burns, is that essentially, as the Secretary's letter has pointed out, the decisionmaking process has worked well, has served the United States interests. As Senator Biden pointed out, as you look into the fine print, it might not serve our interests so well if in fact our effective veto was terminated. Having said all of that, none of us has wisdom that is all encompassing on these issues. Times change. Senator Levin in his comments has cited some reasons and these are important to consider. Therefore, I come out in this discussion on the side of thought that within 18 months the United States ought to think through these arguments, ought to put them on the agenda of the North Atlantic Treaty Council for discussion. In 18 months the world may have changed a lot. Even if a discussion of them in recent months led to apparently universally negative views of our NATO allies, plus apparently a negative viewpoint of our own Secretary of State, it is conceivable that on further study, intensive study in this area, there may be some other constructive results. I say this because I respect very deeply the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. They, too, held hearings, as I cited in my opening statement, on the NATO accession issue. They are intensely interested, as we are in the Foreign Relations Committee, and as all Members of this body are, in what is in the best interests of our country, in our military alliances, in the prosecution of peace, in those horrible instances, and in the prosecution of war. These are serious issues, and this is perhaps an appropriate time as the body is focused on NATO to, once again, say these are discussions that have to take place from time to time. We in the United States ought to suggest that our Secretary of State take that initiative. For these reasons, I am going to support the amendment. I hope that, as a matter of fact, it will receive a unanimous verdict of support today on the procedural issues and issues that are out there, even if all of us have fairly strong views on the substance--and that would include the administration as well as colleagues.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia as much time as he might require.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is a privilege to yield as much time as he requires to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no Senators who wish to debate. I have consulted with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden. He knows of no Members on the Democratic side seeking time to debate and I know of no Republicans who seek further time in debate. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back on both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my understanding, and I ask for guidance from the Chair, is that a vote on final passage of the NATO treaty will occur at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LUGAR. I advise all Senators that the next action on the treaty will, in fact, be the final vote at 9:30 tomorrow. I also add as an announcement that the foreign ministers of the countries seeking ascension will be brought to the floor following the vote for presentation to Senators. That will be a prelude for a number of recognition ceremonies involving the President, the White House, and others.

Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for his leadership in our committee throughout the years and, likewise, specifically, on the issue of NATO that has been before the Senate.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I know I speak for all members of the Foreign Relations Committee in commending the Armed Services Committee for this discussion of these issues, and, most importantly, the comity between the committee members and leadership. I think that is demonstrated in our debate today on a serious issue but to one which we have come to a good conclusion. I know of no further debate. It would be a privilege if the Chair would put the issue to us.

Mr. LUGAR. All on the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now begin a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.