[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 130 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3894-S3900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATO
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
accession of Finland and Sweden into the NATO alliance.
In May, I visited Helsinki and Stockholm as part of a Senate
delegation to encourage the Finnish and Swedish efforts to join the
alliance. Our trip, however, started in Ukraine. There, after a long,
secret journey under cover of darkness, our contingent of four Senators
met with President Zelenskyy for 2 hours. We discussed the military,
humanitarian, economic, and security consequences of Russia's
unprovoked, brutal war against Ukraine. I asked President Zelenskyy
whether he thought Vladimir Putin's attack on his country had had the
opposite effect of what he had intended. For example, the Russian-
speaking sections of eastern Ukraine are now embracing their Ukrainian
identity, and NATO is more united than ever. President Zelenskyy told
me that Putin's war of aggression not only had been the opposite of the
easy conquest that Putin had expected but also had strengthened the
NATO alliance and the European Union.
(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
Mr. President, one cannot understand how Russia's invasion of Ukraine
has upended decades and, in the case of Sweden, centuries of security
policy for these countries. For 200 years, Sweden has maintained a
policy of neutrality, but, as Swedish Prime Minister Andersson put it
to me, ``February 24 changed everything.'' That was the date of the
Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Finland, which shares an 830-mile border with Russia, likewise
concluded that Russia's aggression required a dramatic rethinking of
its security. To demonstrate the reality on the ground, the Finnish
President took us outside of his home and pointed to his right, where
Tallinn, Estonia, is only 50 miles away across the Baltic Sea. He then
pointed to his left and told us that St. Petersburg, Russia, is only
200 miles away.
Our visits to these leaders came just as the Parliaments of Finland
and Sweden were voting to formally request admission into NATO. We
assured their leaders that there was strong, bipartisan support in the
Senate for their accession and that adding their capabilities to the
alliance would improve, would strengthen our collective defense and
security.
This is, indeed, an important point. Sweden and Finland will both
bring enormous geographic advantages and military capabilities to NATO.
Finland is expected to exceed NATO's 2 percent defense spending target
this year, and Sweden has committed to meeting that target as soon as
possible. Finland has the largest reserve military force in Europe and
has recently decided to upgrade its current fleet of American F-18
fighter jets with the fifth-generation F-35. For the past several
years, Sweden has been increasing its arms spending, and the country
has advanced defense industrial capabilities.
The addition of both of these nations to NATO will bolster deterrence
against Russia in the Arctic, Nordic, and Baltic regions.
[[Page S3895]]
For decades, Finland and Sweden have had a strong history of support
for NATO. Their advanced militaries are, for example, interoperable
with member nations. Both countries also have supported NATO-led
operations over the decades, including in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and
Iraq. They frequently participate in alliance-led exercises and
capacity-building operations in Africa and elsewhere.
During the current crisis in Ukraine, Finland and Sweden have been
invaluable partners to the Ukrainians. They have been sending vital
military aid to Ukraine, as well as humanitarian assistance, since
February, including anti-ship missiles, rifles, body armor, and anti-
tank weapons.
There are a few critics who contend that this NATO expansion, which
will more than double NATO's direct border with Russia, is somehow
provocative to Vladimir Putin. This assertion ignores a clear pattern
of Russian aggression extending back years.
In 2008, Russia invaded its neighbor, Georgia. In 2014, Russia
invaded Ukraine for the first time, occupying and seizing Crimea and
areas of eastern Ukraine. Then, earlier this year, of course, Russia
launched the largest and most devastating land war in Europe since
World War II without any justification or provocation when it invaded
the free and democratic nation of Ukraine.
This expansion of NATO is warranted precisely because of Russian
provocations across the region.
As always, NATO and the United States have no desire to see a war
with Russia, but we will defend the territory and sovereignty of each
of its members.
Russia's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has permanently
changed the European security environment. Enlarging NATO to include
two of our most capable and supportive European allies, Finland and
Sweden, is a necessary and deliberative response.
I urge all of my colleagues, in a strong vote, to join me in the
swift ratification of Finland and Sweden's accession into NATO.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, one, I want to associate myself with the
comments of Senator Collins from Maine. That was a great story about
why we should all be happy today with Finland and Sweden and why this
makes a lot of sense.
There is one person I want to thank whom I don't usually give a big
shout-out to: President Putin from Russia. Without you, we wouldn't be
here. You have done more to strengthen NATO than any speech I could
ever hope to give.
John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate because what we
have been able to accomplish here through Putin's invasion of Ukraine
is to remind everybody in the world, when it comes to bullies, you
better stand up to them before it is too late. So our friends in
Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO. That is a good thing.
But let me put Ukraine in perspective right quick. Our military
leaders and our experts told us: After the invasion, 4 days, they would
be in Kyiv. Well, they miscalculated. They overestimated the
capabilities of the Russians, and they certainly undercalculated the
resolve of the Ukrainian people.
We are 160 days into this fight. Ukraine is still standing, bloodied
but unbowed; NATO is bigger; crippling sanctions on the Russian
economy; the ICC is investigating war crimes committed by Putin and his
cronies. You have 100 U.S. Senators--we can't agree on Sunday being a
day off--have agreed that Russia should be a State sponsor of terrorism
under U.S. law.
So 160 days into this fight, I am telling you right now, things are
looking pretty good for the good guys. And I say that knowing how much
suffering has gone on in the Ukraine. But today, we are here to admit
two new members of NATO.
NATO has been the strongest force for good, I think, on the planet
since 1949. It is a group of countries organized around democratic
concepts that have pledged to one another mutual defense--an attack on
one is an attack on all. It has deterred war. It has been a stabilizing
influence in Europe since the end of World War II. And along comes
Putin.
So NATO today is going to be bigger than it was before the invasion.
NATO today is going to have more military resources than before the
invasion by Russia into Ukraine.
Again, I want to thank President Putin. You have done something for
the democratic world that we have not been able to do for ourselves.
To NATO, as an organization, keep your eye on the ball; pay your 2
percent.
To my friends who suggest that expanding NATO makes us weaker against
China, what movie are you watching? How can you believe for one moment
abandoning Ukraine or showing less of a commitment to European
stability will make China more afraid of us and less likely to invade
Taiwan?
The best thing we could do right now as a world--particularly, the
democratic world--is to become stronger in the face of aggression, to
make NATO bigger. And we are going to accomplish that in a few minutes.
To all my colleagues who have come down here and spoken on behalf of
the admission of these two countries, God bless you; you are on the
right side of history.
One regret I do have is my great friend Senator McCain could not see
today come about because he would be exceedingly pleased that the
democratic world has rallied in the face of the aggression by Putin.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in my
appreciation for the expansion of NATO--as others have said, the
greatest alliance, maybe in history, certainly in the last 200 years,
an alliance that has served great benefits and now is growing. NATO has
been there since 1949.
The two countries that we are going to be voting to admit today have
resisted since 1949 being part of NATO, but with the recent actions,
they decided you now have to choose a side.
Now, they are not countries that have been on the sideline just
hoping nothing would happen. They are countries that had significant
defense capacities, significant military capabilities. They will be net
security contributors to NATO. They bring to the alliance these
advanced capabilities. They bring a neighborhood understanding of
Russia, greater than maybe almost any other country, particularly
Finland, which has been mentioned has an 800-plus mile border that will
double the NATO border with Russia. They have been defending that
border since World War II, and the Russians understand their capacity
to defend it.
They, frankly, bring good real estate and good location. I wish I had
a map here on the floor with me, but I don't. The Baltic really becomes
a NATO sea. And that is an important thing--Norway already in NATO,
Sweden joining NATO, Finland joining NATO; right across from the three
Baltic countries that are much more in need of assistance than these
two countries that are joining an alliance that will give them that
assistance. It is an incredible day for NATO.
The Baltic Sea, the Arctic--I have heard more on this floor and in
this country about the Arctic in the last 5 years than I think we have
talked about in the previous 25 years. The Arctic basically becomes
NATO territory with the sole exception of Russia.
The United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland become the
countries that are bound not only in the neighborhood of the Arctic but
also in a supportive alliance.
We have been hearing about how China wants to become an Arctic power.
I think the change in NATO makes it incredibly harder for China to
become an Arctic power or for Russia to become an Arctic abuser. And we
are seeing that happen right here.
Again, great capability. The Swedes have an Air Force, a Navy. They
have the best cyber offensive and defensive capability in Europe--that
large industrial base. Finland just agreed to buy 64 F-35s to replace
their F-18s.
Both countries have been working with us in military exercises for
years. They are virtually immediately interoperable. They bring
capacity to the NATO alliance that it doesn't have without them.
I am grateful that they are joining. Finland is already at the 2
percent goal
[[Page S3896]]
of their commitment to their own national defense. Sweden will be there
by 2028.
Senator Durbin, who is here on the floor with me, and I met with both
of these countries recently. And they are absolutely committed that
this is the moment when the NATO alliance takes on new meaning, not
only to their two countries but I think to--and not only Western Europe
but, frankly, to the world.
This is an alliance that stands for shared values, that stands for
border integrity, that stands for being sure that those things go into
the future.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this today. I am glad we are
able to be among the first. We were hoping we would be the first
country to approve the admission into NATO of these two countries, but
we will be among the first. I think it sends a signal to the world and
hopefully to all Americans that not only is NATO important, but it will
be stronger with Sweden and Finland than it has ever been. And I look
forward to the opportunity to cast this vote today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Paul amendment to the
resolution of advice and consent to ratification for the extension of
the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to NATO.
Like virtually all of my colleagues, I support the admission of
Sweden and Finland into NATO. Their commitment to democracy, their
military capabilities, and their resolve in the face of Russian
aggression is welcome.
With Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine, NATO has been united in
providing support for the Ukrainians to defend themselves. NATO is also
united in its adherence to the revisions of the NATO treaty. The world
is watching to see if there are any cracks in that commitment,
particularly with respect to its provisions for mutual defense.
We must not in any way appear to be going wobbly on article 5. I fear
that the Paul amendment would do just that. Further, Senator Paul's
amendment is unnecessary. The NATO treaty specifically states this:
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried
out by the Parties in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes.
That is in the NATO treaty itself.
So adding the language of the Paul amendment would only add confusion
and potentially communicate to the world that this body seeks something
in addition to the adherence to the constitutional process that the
treaty already requires.
Now, it is well and good for Congress to consider war powers and our
role in military conflicts. But doing so as part of the accession of
Sweden and Finland to NATO while Ukraine is under attack and while
Russia may potentially be eyeing violence against NATO nations is
surely not the time.
Our commitment to NATO and article 5 must be clear and unambiguous.
Throughout our Nation's history, the United States has not once
ratified NATO protocols with a reservation.
I am going to say that again to make sure I got it right.
Throughout our Nation's history, the United States has not once
ratified NATO protocols with a reservation. Now should be no different.
Doing so could send the wrong message to the people of Ukraine, to our
other friends and allies. It could even be propagandized as a nod to
Putin.
I urge my colleagues to vote down Senator Paul's amendment. Our
message must be clear: We stand with NATO, with article 5, and with the
admission of Finland and Sweden into our alliance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I hope that my remarks are even less.
I stand in solid support of the accession of Finland and Sweden into
NATO. Just a few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Lithuania.
It is a country that means a lot to me and my family. I met with the
former President Valdas Adamkus.
Adamkus, a Lithuanian immigrant to the United States, had a
distinguished record in our government's service here and then returned
to Lithuania after his retirement from the U.S. Federal Government and
ran successfully for President.
He had the vision to realize that the future of Lithuania and the
Baltic States was in the European Union and NATO and worked strenuously
to achieve those goals, and I was happy to be joining him in that
effort.
Now, this moment in history really complements his leadership because
the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a confirmation that the
Baltic Sea is safer than ever when it comes to the West. If Vladimir
Putin thought that by invading Ukraine he could somehow inhibit the
future of NATO or in some way limit its future, the opposite has
occurred.
NATO is stronger than ever. And the United States' commitment to NATO
is stronger than ever. The fact that only a handful of Senators from
either political party are even questioning the accession of Sweden and
Finland are good indications to me that we have bipartisan support for
this NATO coalition now more than ever--and we should, first, for the
Ukrainians and, secondly, for the United States and its future.
Those who are speaking against the accession of Finland and Sweden
suggest that we ought to focus our attention on Asia. Well, we cannot
ignore Asia. It is an important part of our near-term future. And we
have got to show strength throughout the world. Why don't we start
right now? With this accession of Finland and Sweden, the strengthening
of the NATO alliance says to any adversary of the United States, even
to China and its future, that this country does business with other
countries in the world on an arm's-length basis and a respectful basis
and can deal with democracies in a constructive way in building their
economies for the future.
I will gladly join in the support of the accession of Finland and
Sweden to NATO. I believe it not only strengthens that alliance when it
comes to this war in Ukraine, it prepares us for challenges in the
future, and it is the right thing for America's security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, today, I rise and urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of the Accession Protocols for Finland and Sweden to join
NATO. This is probably one of the easiest votes I will ever make in the
U.S. Senate.
I have listened to arguments about Asia, somehow that it comes in
here. Look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Certainly, we
need to look at what is going on in Asia, pay attention to what is
going on in Asia, but what we are talking about here is the defense of
the North Atlantic.
This organization was put together many years ago. It has grown over
those years to be 30-strong. And now we are going to add two more.
I have characterized NATO as the most successful political and
military alliance in the history of the world; certainly the most
powerful alliance in the history of the world. And today we have the
opportunity to expand the alliance by including Finland and Sweden.
Over the years, we have added various countries, and debates could be
had about those countries as to whether or not they are sufficient to
join NATO and be part of the article 5 ``an attack on one is an attack
on all'' alliance. But on Finland and Sweden, there really is little,
if any, argument. These are two very successful countries.
This accession process is an important chance for the United States
to demonstrate leadership in NATO--we have over the years, and we will
continue to do so--and the United States' commitment to its
modernization and to its future.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has carefully consulted and
coordinated with our NATO allies, the Governments of Sweden and
Finland, and with the administration to ensure this process could move
as efficiently as possible. I can tell you that, personally--and others
have done the same over recent years and particularly over recent
months, have pressed Finland and Sweden to change their view as to
[[Page S3897]]
whether or not they should remain neutral and instead move into the
NATO alliance.
On February 24, we all know the world shook. Things changed
dramatically. After Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine, Sweden and
Finland, I am sure, woke up and said: You know, that could be us next,
but it won't be us if we join NATO. So their polling in their country
changed dramatically on February 24 as to whether or not NATO
membership was appropriate for them. They have now enthusiastically
said that NATO is appropriate for them, and we have shown in this body
bipartisan support for Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Finland and Sweden will make model members of the NATO alliance. Both
have strong and capable militaries in place now and are already net
contributors to the security alliance. As was pointed out earlier by
Senator Collins here, they have been very active in NATO, even though
they are not members of NATO, by participating in various drills that
have taken place and also by participating in the duties that NATO does
strengthening the eastern flank of NATO. They have also demonstrated
interoperability with NATO, which is extremely important, and the
commitment necessary to join the alliance.
I would say that today, with what is going on in Ukraine, Finland and
Sweden joining the alliance is even more important. When the shooting
is over in Ukraine, it won't be over. NATO is going to reexamine what
they need to do to strengthen themselves, and certainly one of those
will be an examination of hardening the eastern flank. Finland and
Sweden, obviously, are on the eastern flank and will add considerably
to that. Not only that, it is going to cost more to defend the eastern
flank simply because of what Russia has done. Finland and Sweden will
be a contributor, as will everybody.
Adding these two nations as full members of our alliance will further
deter any temptation by Russia to engage in military adventurism in the
Baltic and Arctic regions. I believe Russia is already deterred when we
say and our NATO allies say and European nations say to Putin: Not one
square inch. Whether it is on the eastern border of one of the Baltic
States or whether it is downtown London or in the United States, an
attack on any of the NATO countries is an attack on all of them, and
the response will be swift.
Today's ratification of Finland and Sweden as new members of NATO
will both send a strong message of transatlantic unity to Putin and
strengthen NATO against Russia's ongoing threat. NATO has pulled
together regionally to push back on Russia, and it is obvious that need
has not gone away.
I want to urge my colleagues to vote yes. This is a really easy vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 5191
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to expand the
NATO alliance to include Sweden and Finland. A crucial question that
should be answered is whether Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO is
in America's best interests and whether their joining will cause more
or less war.
Well, for every action, there is a reaction. What do our adversaries
say? Putin's immediate response to it was that Russia ``does not have a
problem'' with Sweden or Finland applying for NATO but that ``the
expansion of military infrastructure into this territory will of course
give rise to reaction and response.'' So from Russia's perspective,
they likely will tolerate Sweden and Finland in NATO but likely will
not tolerate certain weapons systems in Finland or Sweden.
Advocates of NATO expansion said we can't be held hostage to Russia's
threats. Perhaps. But if a country announces they will do X if you do
Y, shouldn't someone at least contemplate the potential scenarios? The
Russians have already announced that placing certain weapons systems in
Finland is a redline. Whether the redline is justified is not the
issue. The issue is, knowing your adversary's position, is it worth the
risk of pushing missiles into Finland?
The world has changed since Putin invaded Ukraine. Arguments that
admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO could provoke Russia are less
potent now since Putin's war shows he can be provoked by actions short
of Ukraine's actual admission to NATO.
Diplomats, though, should try to envision how the Ukraine war might
end. One possible end would be, as Zelenskyy has stated, a neutral
Ukraine not militarily aligned with either the West or the East.
Neutrality doesn't have to always be a weakness. Neutral nations can
serve as intermediaries in conflict resolution. Often, our discussions
with Iran use neutral Sweden as a conduit. When all nations are
aligned, who will be the mediators? The world will soon lose the
important roles played by a neutral Finland and Sweden.
But Putin's invasion in Ukraine has changed the world. In this new
world, I am less adamant about preventing NATO's expansion with Sweden
and Finland, but I am still adamant about the reality that NATO's
expansion will come at a cost.
I am here today to propose a reservation to ensure that this
expansion will not come at the expense of losing our ability to
determine where and when the United States goes to war. My reservation
merely reasserts that article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede
Congress's constitutional responsibility to declare war before the
United States commits troops to war.
The Founders designed the separation of war powers to ensure that the
decision to engage in hostilities would be made only after serious
deliberation. According to our Constitution, the United States would
resort to war only after the collective wisdom of the people's elected
representatives determine war is in the best interest. We know this
because our Founders told us so.
At the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson stated that
the proposed Constitution would not allow one man or even one body of
men to declare war.
In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President
would be restricted to conducting the armies and navies, which Congress
alone would raise and fund.
The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, argued:
In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found
than in the clause which confides the question of war or
peace to the legislature.
Some have argued that a vote for my amendment is to go wobbly on
NATO's article 5 commitment. I would argue that the Gold Star parents
and our men and women in the field don't want Congress to go wobbly on
the Constitution.
There is no more serious question that we are entrusted to answer
than whether to commit the men and women of the armed services to war.
We cannot delegate that responsibility to the President, to the courts,
to an international body, or to our allies. This is our constitutional
responsibility, one that we have freely taken and one that our
constituents expect us to uphold.
I also want to assure my colleagues here that adoption of my
reservation will not jeopardize the NATO treaty. Some will argue that
while the substance of my reservation is unobjectionable, the process
of adopting the reservation threatens the expansion of NATO. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
It is true that reservations must be accepted by the other parties,
but the other parties are NATO allies. The other parties are NATO
allies who are all dependent on us to come to their rescue. Do you
think they are going to lecture us on obeying our own Constitution? We
should expect those allies to respect article 11 of the NATO treaty,
which states that the provisions of the treaty are to be carried out in
accordance with each country's respective constitutional process.
Additionally, my reservation does not require any other country to
take action or renegotiate the treaty. The reservation will be deemed
accepted if our allies do not object after a period of 12 months.
I call on my colleagues to support my proposal to reaffirm that our
Constitution and the NATO treaty are abundantly clear: Our
international obligations do not supersede Congress's responsibility to
declare war. It is in our Constitution. It is the supreme law of the
land, and we should today reassert that we will obey the Constitution
above all else.
[[Page S3898]]
I call up my amendment No. 5191 and ask that it be reported by
number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 5191 to the resolution of ratification to Treaty
Document No. 117-3.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide a reservation to the Protocol)
In section 1, in the section heading, strike ``declaration
and conditions'' and insert ``declaration, conditions, and
reservation''.
In section 1, strike ``declarations of section 2 and the
condition in section 3'' and insert ``declaration of section
2, the conditions in section 3, and the reservation in
section 4''.
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 4. RESERVATION.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following reservation: Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional
requirement that Congress declare war before the United
States engages in war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we bring to an end this debate about
the accession treaty for Sweden and Finland, I have been listening in
my office to my colleagues' comments, and I think it has all been very
constructive. But I do have a different view--a view on some points
that have been made that I think are wrong--and before this body casts
a vote, I think they should understand why.
I appreciate Senator Paul's focus on Congress's prerogatives with
respect to war powers. Like Senator Paul, I have a deep respect for the
critical role that the Constitution assigns to Congress in this area,
and I believe our democracy is stronger for it. But I rise to convey
that Senator Paul's amendment is unnecessary, unprecedented, and, if
adopted, will be deeply damaging to NATO and our relationship with NATO
allies.
That is why the Foreign Relations Committee, in marking up these
treaties, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan vote, voted down a
substantively identical amendment offered by Senator Paul.
The amendment before us today is not necessary. There is no question
that the North Atlantic Treaty and the Finland and Sweden protocols do
not and cannot supersede the Constitution. No treaty can. This is a
well-established and well-understood point that the Supreme Court has
reaffirmed.
The amendment, however, would be deeply damaging to our core national
security interests. Neither the United States nor any other NATO ally
has ever insisted on a reservation--a statement that would limit and
call into question our adherence to NATO obligations. But that is
exactly what this amendment does.
If adopted, it would be shared with all NATO members and would signal
to them that we are limiting our obligations to NATO with regard to
article 5 of the NATO treaty. If we go down this road, we can expect
that other countries will do so, as well, gutting the core commitment
that NATO members make to each other.
Particularly at this time, with Putin's rampage in Ukraine, his
energy war against Europe, and his constant saber-rattling, it would be
self-defeating to do anything that casts doubt on our rock-solid
commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.
So let me reiterate: There is no question that neither the treaties
we are voting on today nor any treaty can supersede the Constitution.
That position is clear in law and clear in logic: The Constitution is
supreme.
From there, we have one task before us: providing advice and consent
to Finland and Sweden's accession in a manner that strengthens the NATO
alliance and strengthens our allies. The amendment before us would do
the opposite.
And for those reasons, I oppose that amendment and urge all my
colleagues to do so as well.
Finally, let me address some of the other critics of Sweden and
Finland's accession to the NATO alliance. Each day we fail to act we
send a message of indecision and division. Some Republican critics
oppose Sweden and Finland joining NATO because they are worried about
the cost to the United States, but that is simply untrue. Sweden and
Finland will reduce these costs.
Instead, we should be asking: What is the cost of delaying NATO
expansion? What is the cost of debating protection for Europe's
democracies? What is the cost of denying security to Sweden and
Finland?
I will tell you, these eleventh-hour concerns standing in the way of
this process only serve Putin's interest. Other critics want an
amendment undermining article 5 of the NATO charter, which says an
attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. But as I said before,
this was overwhelmingly rejected by both sides of the aisle in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And then there are still others who say we shouldn't accept Sweden
and Finland into NATO because China, not Russia, is our greatest
foreign policy threat. Let me just say one thing, if you want to make
sure you defeat the China challenge, the first thing you want to do is
defeat Russia in Ukraine.
Xi Jinping is looking at what is happening in Ukraine. He is looking
at what the West is doing in Ukraine. And he is making calculations as
it relates to Taiwan and elsewhere in the world. You want to make sure
that you defeat Russia in Ukraine.
And let me also say, as someone who has worked on foreign policy for
three decades and who is intimately aware of the danger and risk that
China poses, we have to be able to meet that challenge in multiple
dimensions. Sometimes we face more than one threat at the same time.
Sometimes our values and commitments compel us to stand up for what we
believe in, and this is one of those times. Putin's regime continues to
push and probe for weakness, and NATO is the best institution we have
to check his push for power across the continent.
Over the course of the last 70 years that NATO has existed, it has
used an open-door policy when it comes to accepting new member
countries. These countries must be functioning democracies. They must
treat minorities fairly. They must resolve conflicts peacefully and be
able to contribute to the NATO alliance. And this criteria describes
Sweden and Finland to a tee.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes to accept these prosperous
democracies into NATO. Vote yes to reduce the cost on the United States
and the entire military alliance. Vote yes to embracing the values and
modern militaries of Sweden and Finland. Vote yes to having these two
democracies join us. Vote yes to strengthening the North American
Treaty Organization today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, Russia's brutal and unprovoked war of
choice against Ukraine has now reached its 5th month. But while
Vladimir Putin had hoped his war would divide the Atlantic alliance, it
has in fact brought us closer together. Today, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization is stronger than ever, so strong in fact that new
states are being brought into the fold. I am proud to vote today in
favor of approving Finland and Sweden's entry into NATO. Their
membership at this moment is critical to countering Putin's threats to
global security--and especially to nearby, vulnerable nations. As I
have already stated publicly with the bipartisan members of the Senate
NATO Observer Group, Finland and Sweden are longstanding security and
economic partners who already share the collective values that guide
our alliance, and I welcome the addition of these two highly capable
countries--and the people of Finland and Sweden--to NATO. Their
decision to join NATO further reveals how Putin has made a huge
strategic blunder, further strengthening the bonds among democratic
nations determined to resist his authoritarian reach.
Ahead of this vote on adding Finland and Sweden to NATO, I would like
to address Senator Paul's amendment regarding article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty and the Constitution. Let's be perfectly clear: There
is no question that the protocols of any treaty do not--and cannot--
supersede the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That premise has
governed U.S. foreign policy since our founding. And it is in keeping
with that long tradition of fidelity to the Constitution that I rise in
strong opposition to Senator Paul's
[[Page S3899]]
amendment. This amendment is unnecessary, and it ignores the ultimate
supremacy of the Constitution over foreign treaties. Not only that, but
this amendment even goes so far as to ignore the substance of the North
Atlantic Treaty itself. Article 11 of the treaty explains that ``its
provisions [shall be] carried out by the Parties in accordance with
their respective constitutional processes''--affirming the ultimate
supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in governing the actions of the
United States. Given these facts, it is clear that Senator Paul's
amendment, which would send the United States and the entire NATO
community down a dangerous and unprecedented path, is predicated on
faulty reasoning.
What is more, Senator Paul's amendment regarding article 5 and the
Constitution threatens to weaken the NATO Alliance itself. The article
5 provision outlining the collective defense obligations of NATO
members constitutes one of the central principles of the North Atlantic
Treaty. The core premise of article 5 is very simple: An attack against
one NATO country should be treated as an attack against all NATO
countries. The strength of the NATO alliance depends upon the shared
understanding of and respect for this special obligation by each and
every member state. But Senator Paul's amendment suggests that each
member state would be able to offer their own, differing interpretation
of article 5, opening the door to confusion, ambiguity, and potential
disorder among NATO members. Since the start of the NATO alliance, the
Senate has voted eight times to admit a total of 18 new members, and on
no such prior occasion was an understanding or reservation like this
added. To do so now would only raise doubts about the nature of our
article 5 commitment to Sweden and Finland.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Senate to reject Senator
Paul's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I just spoke an hour ago on the floor,
and I am a very strong proponent of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. I
am also a very strong supporter of NATO, and I want the alliance to
endure for decades to come. But alliances can't endure if shared
commitments and burdens are not met.
This is particularly true for democratic alliances, where there must
be a sense among the free citizens of such countries that all are
pulling their weight for the collective defense and shared goals they
all agree to.
So the amendment I just called up an hour ago, No. 5192, is meant to
make this clear. It simply states that the U.S. Senate expects all NATO
members to spend a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense spending as
agreed at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014. This will make NATO
stronger, as will the accession of Finland and Sweden as new members.
And I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 5192
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Sullivan amendment.
The amendment (No. 5192) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 5191
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Paul
amendment.
Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 10, nays 87, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 281 Ex.]
YEAS--10
Braun
Cruz
Daines
Hawley
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
NAYS--87
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Cornyn
Leahy
Merkley
The amendment (No. 5191) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). Under the previous order, any
committee conditions, declarations, or reservations, as applicable, are
agreed to.
Vote on Resolution of Ratification
(No. 117-3)
The question occurs on the adoption of resolution of ratification, as
amended.
The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, since its creation over 70 years ago,
no alliance in human history has done more to advance the cause of
freedom and democracy than NATO.
Today, at a moment when democracy in Europe is under attack, as
belligerent autocrats, like Putin, clamor for European dominance, the
U.S. Senate is voting in overwhelming bipartisan fashion to approve
Finland's and Sweden's accession to the NATO alliance. This is
important substantively and as a signal to Russia that they cannot
intimidate America or Europe.
(Applause.)
Thank you, Roger.
Putin has tried to use his war in Ukraine to divide the West.
Instead, today's vote shows our alliance is stronger than ever.
I applaud the leaders of Sweden and Finland, who made a bold choice
to depart from their long-held position with respect to NATO. I am
confident they will be excellent partners in this alliance.
I thank Leader McConnell. Back in May, we met with the Finnish
President and the Swedish Prime Minister and promised to approve their
accession as quickly as possible. Today, we are keeping that promise.
I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
springing into action on this matter, especially Senator Menendez, the
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who did such a good
job with his ranking member, Senator Risch, as well as Senators Shaheen
and Tillis, who have been our leaders in reaching out to NATO, for
their leadership roles. Senators Menendez and Risch ensured their
committee acted quickly.
On a broader note, in the past few months, we have seen an amazing
string of bipartisan achievements in this Chamber--achievements rarely
seen in such fast succession. We passed the first gun safety bill in 30
years, approved the largest investment in U.S. science and technology
in generations, gave veterans the largest expansion of benefits in
decades, and today, we are strengthening the NATO alliance. All of
this, every bit of this, was done on a bipartisan basis. I have always
said this Senate Democratic majority would be willing to work with the
other side whenever possible, and these past months have been some of
those moments.
Finally, to the Swedish and Finnish diplomats who have worked for
months to reach this moment, rest assured, you have many friends in
this Chamber. We promise to get this done, and we will always, always
stand by your side as allies defending each other.
I thank my colleagues for their work.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S3900]]
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``yea.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 282 Ex.]
YEAS--95
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--1
Hawley
PRESENT--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--3
Cornyn
Leahy
Merkley
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 95,
the nays are 1, and one Senator responded present.
Two-thirds of the Senators present, a quorum being present, having
voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.
The resolution of ratification agreed to is as follows:
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein).
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS
AND CONDITIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
Sweden, which were signed on July 5, 2022, by the United
States of America and other parties to the North Atlantic
Treaty of 1949 (Treaty Doc. 117-3), subject to the
declarations of section 2 and the condition of section 3.
SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declarations:
(1) Reaffirmation That United States Membership in NATO
Remains a Vital National Security Interest of the United
States.--The Senate declares that--
(A) for more than 70 years the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has served as the preeminent organization
to defend the countries in the North Atlantic area against
all external threats;
(B) through common action, the established democracies of
North America and Europe that were joined in NATO persevered
and prevailed in the task of ensuring the survival of
democratic government in Europe and North America throughout
the Cold War;
(C) NATO enhances the security of the United States by
embedding European states in a process of cooperative
security planning and by ensuring an ongoing and direct
leadership role for the United States in European security
affairs;
(D) the responsibility and financial burden of defending
the democracies of Europe and North America can be more
equitably shared through an alliance in which specific
obligations and force goals are met by its members;
(E) the security and prosperity of the United States is
enhanced by NATO's collective defense against aggression that
may threaten the security of NATO members; and
(F) United States membership in NATO remains a vital
national security interest of the United States.
(2) Strategic Rationale for NATO Enlargement.--The Senate
declares that--
(A) the United States and its NATO allies face continued
threats to their stability and territorial integrity;
(B) an attack against Finland or Sweden, or the
destabilization of either arising from external subversion,
would threaten the stability of Europe and jeopardize United
States national security interests;
(C) Finland and Sweden, having established democratic
governments and having demonstrated a willingness to meet the
requirements of membership, including those necessary to
contribute to the defense of all NATO members, are in a
position to further the principles of the North Atlantic
Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area; and
(D) extending NATO membership to Finland and Sweden will
strengthen NATO, enhance stability in Europe, and advance the
interests of the United States and its NATO allies.
(3) Support for NATO's Open Door Policy.--The policy of the
United States is to support NATO's Open Door Policy that
allows any European country to express its desire to join
NATO and demonstrate its ability to meet the obligations of
NATO membership.
(4) Future Consideration of Candidates for Membership in
NATO.--
(A) Senate Finding.--The Senate finds that the United
States will not support the accession to the North Atlantic
Treaty of, or the invitation to begin accession talks with,
any European state ( other than Finland and Sweden), unless--
(i) the President consults with the Senate consistent with
Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the
United States (relating to the advice and consent of the
Senate to the making of treaties); and
(ii) the prospective NATO member can fulfill all of the
obligations and responsibilities of membership, and the
inclusion of such state in NATO would serve the overall
political and strategic interests of NATO and the United
States.
(B) Requirement for Consensus and Ratification.--The Senate
declares that no action or agreement other than a consensus
decision by the full membership of NATO, approved by the
national procedures of each NATO member, including, in the
case of the United States, the requirements of Article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States
(relating to the advice and consent of the Senate to the
making of treaties), will constitute a commitment to
collective defense and consultations pursuant to Articles 4
and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
(5) Influence of Non-NATO Members on NATO Decisions.--The
Senate declares that any country that is not a member of NATO
shall have no impact on decisions related to NATO
enlargement.
(6) Support for 2014 Wales Summit Defense Spending
Benchmark.--The Senate declares that all NATO members should
spend a minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) on defense and 20 percent of their defense budgets on
major equipment, including research and development, by 2024.
as outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.
SEC. 3. CONDITION.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following conditions
(1) Presidential Certification.--Prior to the deposit of
the instrument of ratification, the President shall certify
to the Senate as follows:
(A) The inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO will not
have the effect of increasing the overall percentage share of
the United States in the common budgets of NATO.
(B) The inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO does not
detract from the ability of the United States to meet or to
fund its military requirements outside the North Atlantic
area.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this resolution:
(1) NATO Members.--The term ``NATO members'' means all
countries that are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) Non-NATO Members.--The term ``non-NATO members'' means
all countries that are not parties to the North Atlantic
Treaty.
(3) North Atlantic Area.--The term ``North Atlantic Area''
means the area covered by Article 6 of the North Atlantic
Treaty, as applied by the North Atlantic Council.
(4) North Atlantic Treaty.--The term ``North Atlantic
Treaty'' means the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at
Washington April 4, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964). as
amended.
(5) United States Instrument of Ratification.--The term
``United States instrument of ratification'' means the
instrument of ratification of the United States of the
Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
Sweden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
____________________