John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. This quote clearly indicates we have to be a watchdog of NATO as we begin to invite in more and more countries.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield to our distinguished colleague from Texas 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, last December I watched carefully as the Senate received from the House this legislation which we are about to adopt. I urge Senators to vote for it. There will be one ``no'' vote, in my judgment. That is the Senator from Virginia. I do so for the following reasons: I believe this subject deserved debate, and that is why I interposed an objection on the UC to have this passed last December, 40-some millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to give to these nations. If we were able to separate this legislation between authorization for these funds, I would vote for it because I think it is important we expend these funds for these nations which are trying very hard, some nine nations--although the money applied to only seven of the nine-- seven nations which are trying to put together, within their respective countries, the fabric and the infrastructure necessary to hopefully qualify for NATO. I am in favor of some expansion. I am not against any country. I am not for any country. The purpose of my objecting was I believed the Senate should have a debate before we passed it. I thought I was successful, but in the darkness of the Senate, as so often happens, the appropriators appropriated the money. So it was a hollow act on my part. At long last we had a very good debate last night and I succeeded in my objectives: Clarifying with the two distinguished colleagues on the floor, the chairman and the ranking member, that this language, which I deem as an invitation to join--if one looks at the overall rhetoric, one sees it is very skillfully put together. It commits the Senate and the Congress to nothing other than the authorization of funds, but I think it could be misinterpreted and misleading to the aspirant nations, and the people, the journalists, and all who will cover the actions by the Senate and, indeed, the Congress now to approve that. I say so for these reasons. The act is entitled the ``Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001.'' Turning to the dictionary, I read the meaning of ``consolidation'': To bring together into a single whole, unite and combine. This is a bad choice of words, in my judgment. This sends a message that all nine, or all seven, should join. I think we lose sight of the purpose of NATO--it is a military organization--which is only if there is a compelling military rationale for additional members, and each member must be fully ready and prepared to take up their responsibilities under article 5, which says an attack on one is an attack on all. So I will vote no, probably the only one, but I will continue to be a watchdog or, as some of my colleagues said, a ``barnyard dog.'' I am going to make certain this Senate carefully reviews those credentials, and we will not have, I say with respect to my chairman and ranking member, suddenly a beautifully embossed document from the President of the United States as a consequence of meetings abroad, and here they are. Do you think this Senate is going to go into it with that document for ratification and single out countries? We cannot do it that way. We have to do our work beforehand. I repeat, we have to do careful work. I will move in my committee, the Armed Services Committee. I hope my colleagues will do likewise. To those of us who can travel to these nations, I urge that we do so. My motives and goals for opposing this legislation are very simple. I am not against an orderly, well thought out process leading to some measure of expansion; my fight is for preservation. NATO is the most extraordinary military treaty in the history of mankind. Let's not sow the seeds of its demise. This legislation being voted on today can be divided into two parts: one, authorize appropriations--which I support--for seven of the nine aspirant nations; and two, a compilation of rhetoric, primarily quotes extracted from speeches and documents, which form a matrix that can easily mislead people into believing that the United States Congress, by enactment of this legislation, is sending an invitation to one and all aspirants to join NATO. They need only RSVP in the affirmative. I think we all agree that we are months away from deciding on which of the aspirant nations meet the criteria to be invited to join NATO. Therefore we should not be on the verge of adopting legislation that implies that aspirants ``from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between'' should be invited to join the Alliance. I speak and vote against this legislation not as a sign that I oppose NATO expansion, but rather as a warning that we simply do not have the facts before us to render an informed judgement on the message this legislation sends across the Atlantic. In closing, I would urge my colleagues to review the statement my good friend Mr. Lantos made on November 7, 2001 in the House of Representatives. On page H7867 on that day's Congressional Record, Mr. Lantos stated: And I strongly endorse the statements of the 10 applicant countries that eventual NATO membership for all of them will be a success for the United States, for Europe and for NATO. While I deeply respect my friend's good intentioned views, that statement makes it clear to me that the proponents of this legislation have already reached the conclusion that all applicants should be invited to join NATO. I believe it is to early in the process to reach that conclusion. The Senator from Delaware.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I draw to my colleagues' attention, ``this act may be cited as the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001.'' What is freedom consolidation? I am not sure. That is what concerns me. There are a number of phrases in here carefully elicited from speeches, documents by our President and others, which portray--I know one of my great loves in life is to paint a little bit. It is like a montage. It is rather pretty. It is like a great painting, but if you look at it from afar you might say, ``We hear that we're in.'' I am glad tonight the distinguished Senators from Ohio, Indiana, and Delaware have made it very clear in response to my questions, this document upon which we are about to vote tomorrow does nothing more than authorize sums of money.

Mr. WARNER. I say, then, Mr. President, the purpose for my initiating this debate has been accomplished. I respect my President. I largely agree with him. But you have now stated your views, and I hope my colleague from Indiana will join you. Beyond the authorization of these funds, this document does not commit us--this Senate, this Congress--to anything beyond the authorization of specific amounts of dollars. It is simply a statement with regard to the future. I also received the assurances from my colleague that this body, through its committee hearings, and otherwise, will eventually be able to look at each country individually and their criteria by which eventually they can be judged as to become members or not. I thank my colleague from Delaware.

Mr. WARNER. That is an important statement, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Then I ask a question of my friend. I realize you have the votes. It is going to stay in, but at least I make the gesture. But I say to my friend, other than the money, which I agree should flow, has flowed, been appropriated, to what does this bill commit the United States and the Congress?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Ohio. He has a very clear understanding through many long years of travel experience and, indeed, his proud heritage. In many debates we have had in this Chamber, particularly with regard to the Baltics, he has brought an important perspective, and I commend him. I am glad the Senator spoke with reference to Russia. I join with my colleague from Indiana. I hope our President is able to make further progress with President Putin. They made good progress to date. I am supportive of the arms control initiatives that will soon be brought to this Chamber. Ronald Reagan's credo, ``trust but verify,'' we should all follow. I remember, I say to my colleagues, by coincidence I was visiting with Secretary of Defense Cohen, our former colleague, in NATO, sitting in the council room of the North Atlantic Council when for the first time a Russian marshal walked in and was seated those many years ago, and they started a relationship with Russia. Does my colleague remember that? I also remember there came a time when Russia abdicated that relationship and walked away from it. I support the initiatives by the President, but let's be mindful of the past. I wish to say to my good friends in the Chamber of the Senate tonight, I seem to be the sole vote of the conscience that I worry about this expansion. If we were to admit nine nations, I say to my dear friend from Ohio, nine nations--and that is what this document basically says. It sort of endorses, to use Senator Lugar's word, this document we are about to adopt tomorrow morning endorses--does my colleague realize that if all nine go in, that will be 28 nations, give a nation or two; that is just about double the original size of NATO. I am heartened by this debate because we have succeeded in this debate tonight to establish, No. 1, that the Senate will have the facts before it is to act intelligently at such time--I say intelligently, I also mean being well informed to make an intelligent decision about the facts of each of the aspirant countries before we hand them a final document as submitted by our President. I say to my good friend from Delaware, in his earlier debate he said: We will have a chance to act. The President will send up a list of nations, and I was proud to do it last time. I remind the Senator, that will be too late for the Senate to act in an informed way. If we examine the record tomorrow of this very fine debate, we will see he now recognizes that we need time, as does the Senator from Indiana, and both Senators committed to bringing the Senate through a hearing process on the facts on which to make a judgment.

Mr. WARNER. That is by unanimous consent. We could amend it tomorrow.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a short comment and then I hope others will engage in the debate. If the Senators from Delaware and Indiana would be willing to just strip out a lot of rhetoric which causes me a problem--because I think for those who do not follow the key debate that we are having, and this is a good debate--I would simply say I would voice vote the authorization for this money and let's get on with it. But just take out this rhetoric which gives rise to expectations in all of these countries. That is my concern. It gives rise to it. Implicitly it says, by the Senate voting on this tomorrow: Oh, the Senate has now said this rhetoric is correct, that all nations should be this, and all nations desiring it--I think it can be misconstrued and misinterpreted. If you want the money, sever the rhetoric and I will voice vote it tonight.

Mr. WARNER. It is a fact.

Mr. WARNER. Not only didn't it slow me up, it was our committee, not your committee, that held the hearings that adduced the facts and brought them to the floor of the Senate which resulted in the rejection of that treaty. Our committee did that work.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those comments.

Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, and then I hope our good colleague from Indiana will join, I can see that day. It will be beautifully embossed, a document on every desk. Do you think the Senate in that period of time, in that debate, will turn down one of those countries? That is the flaw in this process which eventually I will point out in my direct statement. We are going to be handed a fait accompli. We will not have had the opportunity, unless your committee or mine--and I shall press in my committee--have some advance hearings on the likely nominee countries and using the criteria in the Secretary of State's letter ``ready and able to contribute to security.'' That is what we should be doing, not waiting until that resolution comes up. That is an obligation. We have so much invested in NATO. It is a treaty that has worked beyond expectation. I remember on the 50th anniversary engaging in that marvelous debate we had in the Senate, extolling the virtues of this treaty. What I am trying to do is to preserve it so it remains strong and any nation that comes in is able, willing, and ready to pick up its share of the load and carry it and not be dependent, as we saw in Kosovo, upon the good old USA, its service persons, and its taxpayers. Some Members around here with gray hair remember things. Do you remember the Libya operation? Did we get overflights of NATO countries in that operation? Go back and check it, Senator. Go back and check. NATO did not open its airspace for that operation. It was a vital operation at that time. Do not say to this Chamber that by virtue of a nation joining NATO it will automatically open the skies, automatically open its borders. No, it will be the individual nations that make a decision. That Libya raid is the case in point. I invite our colleagues, tell me, is it a fait accompli that we will be handed in November all the panoply, the ceremony, and this Chamber will get up and reject the Nation? I don't think it will happen that way.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I can get my colleague's attention, this debate we are having tonight arose because last fall in December, as our Chamber was quite properly moving towards closing down--the Christmas season was upon us--I discovered we were about to authorize $55.5 million to seven nations without a moment's debate. The time was not there to have that debate. So I objected. I do not object to the money proceeding to these seven nations. I have supported it in years before. I support the flow of money. My concern, I say to my colleague from Delaware, is the rhetoric in which that money is wrapped in this resolution.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I see my other dear friend from Indiana. There is no one in this Senate whom I admire more than my dear friend. I regret we have some differences on this issue. First, I ask unanimous consent to print in this Record a letter addressed to me from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, jointly signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, in which they support, on behalf of the President, the measure before the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I have notified several colleagues who have expressed an interest in utilizing some of the time in opposition. I wish to enter into a colloquy. I must say, in my years in the Senate, I do not know of anyone I enjoy having a colloquy with more than my great friend from Delaware. I hope he does not disappoint us tonight, but just a little rise in temperature at some point as we go along.

Mr. WARNER. I yield.

Mr. WARNER. The rhetoric, the verbiage, that is in the House measure. We are about to adopt the House measure, if my understanding is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will close this debate, unless others seek recognition, by reiterating my concern is for the American service person--soldier, sailor, airman, and marine--who at some point in time, because of the articles of this treaty, ``an attack on one is an attack on all'', our service persons could be in the foxhole fighting, repelling that attack with someone who is not trained, not equipped, cannot communicate and all the other problems we have had in seeking a uniformity of standards and military capabilities among the NATO forces. We are putting our people at risk. We are asking our taxpayers, again, to spend enormous sums of money as we did in the Balkan operations. I supported the Balkan operations. We did the right thing: 70 percent of the combat missions, 50 percent of the airlift. This is not the lone dissenter, I suppose, in the Senate speaking. This is the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, whom my colleague from Indiana and I have met through many years, former Minister of Defense from Great Britain, now Secretary General of NATO, who said the following. And I will quote from Secretary General Robertson's speech on NATO's future at the February 2000 Wehrkunde Conference in Munich: The United States must have partners who can contribute their fair share to operations which benefit the entire Euro- Atlantic community. . . . But the reality is . . . hardly any European country can deploy usable and effective forces in significant numbers outside their borders, and sustain them for months or even years as we all need to do today. For all Europe's rhetoric, an annual investment of over $140 billion by NATO's European members-- That is the current 18, our Nation being the 19th. And I remind my colleagues, our military budget is $379 billion, which I am privileged to join with Chairman Levin to bring to the floor shortly. The total of all other 18 is $140 billion. For all Europe's rhetoric, an annual investment of over $140 billion by NATO's European members, we still need U.S. help to move, command, and provision a major operation. American critics of Europe's military incapability are right. So, if we are to ensure that the United States moves neither towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities. I am delighted we have had this debate tonight. I thank colleagues for coming over at this very late hour and participating. It has given me the opportunity to make my points, to elicit very important commitments from colleagues in position of authority. I am not discussing withdrawal from NATO, as may have been inferred by some. I have not reached any conclusion about any one or several countries at this point in time as to whether they should or should not be admitted into NATO. I do not believe this is an open-door policy. I read article 10. It is quite specific in the treaty. It says again, you must have the capability to contribute and bear your burden for the security of the entire NATO. I support efforts by our President with regard to Russia. Again, I think we have covered that. To the extent that the additional nations in NATO can help in this war on terrorism, you will have my support. We have had a good debate. I will do everything I can, and now tonight I am assured by others, to see this is done before the final document is voted upon by the Senate. I would like to add one thing to this debate. Our good colleague from Delaware, the chairman, said he thought perhaps tonight the only people following this debate would be the ambassadors of the aspirant countries and perhaps ambassadors from other countries, but I have found there is a remarkable infrastructure in the Nation's Capital, and perhaps elsewhere. Many of them are volunteers, such as Mrs. Julie Finley, who is a lifetime friend of mine and who has done a lot of hard work and constructive effort on her own initiative to invite members of the aspirant nations, be they the prime ministers or the defense ministers or the foreign ministers, to events so that colleagues can share and have the opportunity to meet them. So I think there is a tremendous infrastructure. They may not be watching this debate tonight, but I think they will make reference to the record that we have put together. So I thank my good friend from Indiana because I believe what we have contributed tonight is a very important step towards strengthening NATO.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I had the honor this morning of serving as the commencement speaker for the graduation ceremonies at the Virginia Military Institute. This longstanding commitment was the reason I was necessarily absent for the vote on the motion to table amendment No. 3427 to H.R. 3009 offered by Senator Gregg. Although my vote would not have affected the outcome, I would have voted against the motion to table.