[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 84 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5891-S5892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--Continued
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, periodically I have addressed the Senate
on my concerns regarding the tragic strife in the Middle East. I did so
on May 2 of this year and in the Record of that day are my comments
with regard to the situation as of that date. Regrettably, the
situation has continued to worsen.
Our President is actively engaged with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense. I have had the opportunity to speak to all of
them about this situation and express my views.
I know of no conflict of recent times that is more serious, in terms
of how its tentacles are far reaching throughout the world. It is
affecting, in some way, our ability to pursue terrorism worldwide. It
is affecting our ability to take further actions to bring about our
goals in Afghanistan. It is affecting the planning that this Nation
must make from time to time--not referring to war plans, but just
planning--as to how we deal with Iraq. Iraq is continuing, under the
leadership of Saddam Hussein, to manufacture and warehouse weapons of
mass destruction. I think the facts are irrefutable.
At the core of all of this decision making is this continuing
conflict in the Middle East. I have said and I will say again today
that I urge those in positions of authority--whether in this country,
in Israel, or in the Palestinian Authority--to look at this daily loss
of life on both sides and do all they can to bring about a cessation of
this tragic conflict.
Eventually the two sides will sit down and try to work out some
agreement for a lasting and permanent peace. A number of us had the
opportunity to visit with President Mubarak when he came to Washington
a few weeks ago. Likewise, a number of us had the opportunity to visit
with President Sharon when he recently visited. I recognize the
Presiding Officer was involved in those consultations. However, it
seems to this Senator that President Mubarak and President Sharon are
miles apart in their views as to how to bring about a resolution of
this conflict.
I read today that certain persons in our Government are trying to
impress upon several nations, which have been actively involved in
trying to bring about peace in the Middle East, to become more active--
specifically with Arafat, to impress upon him the need to exercise his
authority to stop this tragic killing.
At the same time, there are certain elements within the Israeli
Government that want nothing to do with Arafat. So on the one hand,
people are going to Arafat to try to get him to do something and, on
the other hand, people are saying we would not deal with him even if he
were to do something.
Much of his infrastructure has been eroded in this conflict. We know
not, at least this country does not, what exactly is the political
structure among the Palestinian people and their ability to convey
through Arafat, or another leader, their views towards a cessation of
hostilities.
But this brings me to the question regarding NATO and the admission
of new countries. Yesterday I had the distinct privilege, along with
other Senators, to welcome in the Senate all 19 Ambassadors from the
NATO nations who have convened here in Washington for a series of
meetings with our Government. It is a very interesting group.
I said to them, in all candor: I am now in my 24th year in the Senate
and I am a strong supporter of NATO. I said that they are the trustees
of the NATO of the future. That alliance has been the most successful
military alliance in the contemporary history of mankind. It has
achieved its goals.
On the 50th anniversary of NATO, the leaders of NATO convened here in
Washington. At that time they added a provision to their charter which
clarifies any doubt that NATO has the authority, subject to the
concurrence of the member nations, to engage in this war on terrorism
and to selectively go into areas of dispute to perform crisis response
operations.
I said to them, quite candidly, that they should entertain the
thought that, should NATO be invited by the Government of Israel, and
such spokesmen or government as may exist amongst the Palestinians, to
come in and provide a peacekeeping force, that they should seriously
entertain whether or not NATO could carry out that mission.
NATO has done it with professional excellence in the Balkans, both in
Bosnia and Kosovo. It is quite interesting that among the beneficiaries
of those peacekeeping operations have been a significant proportion of
the Muslim population. So NATO has clearly established in Kosovo and
Bosnia, an opportunity for the people in those countries to come
together and begin to form a government that will improve their quality
of life, certainly an improvement from what I witnessed when I first
went there in the fall of 1991 and saw of the ravages of war.
I explained this yesterday to those Ambassadors. I also said the
following.
I can remember the days right in this Chamber when there were heated
debates, particularly after the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall. That
wall came down. Ronald Reagan is to be credited in history for being
instrumental in getting that wall to come down, ending the cold war and
hastening the demise of the Soviet Union.
I can remember the people of the United States through their elected
representatives saying, Should we not now lessen our contributions to
NATO? And they are very significant dollar contributions, and
leadership, manpower, and equipment.
In this bill that we are on right now is $200 million and a fraction
of new taxpayer money--$205 million for the military budget of NATO.
That follows approximately $50 million in assistance authorized and
appropriated by this Chamber several months ago in the context of the
Freedom Consolidation Act.
In this one fiscal year alone--it may be two, and I will have to
check that--roughly $255 million. That is a significant contribution by
our taxpayers. And, that doesn't even begin to capture the costs the
American taxpayers bear in keeping over 100,000 military personnel
permanently stationed in the European theater.
I said to those Ambassadors that this year there will be strong
support for the NATO budget, as there should be. NATO is doing a
remarkable job in the Balkans and elsewhere. We are strong supporters.
But also in the Senate yesterday, history was made. The Senate is
roughly 214 years old. It was the first time that in one hearing room--
the Armed Services Committee where I was present--under the advise and
consent procedure, we were hearing from a prominent four-star officer
nominated to become commander in chief of the Northern Command--a new
command established primarily for the purpose of protecting the
citizens of our 50 States, and coordinating the use of our U.S.
military to protect our States. Stop to
[[Page S5892]]
think. This Nation has felt itself secure behind two great oceans for
those 214 years of our Senate--secure because of the strong
relationships we have to the north with Canada, and to the south with
Mexico and our Central and South American neighbors. But our President
has wisely concluded--and I commend and support him--we must set up a
separate military command for the purposes of protecting the citizens
of our 50 States.
In another hearing room was a distinguished civilian witness--
Governor Tom Ridge, the President's Homeland Security Adviser--
introducing a proposed Department of Homeland Security, the head of
which will have the responsibility of marshaling the assets of this
Nation's military, intelligence, police, National Guard, and all types
of coordination required, again to protect citizens in their homes, in
their towns, in their villages, and in the cities of the United States
of America.
That was a profound day yesterday--a very profound crossroads in the
history of this country.
As I talked with the NATO Ambassadors, I felt compelled to make the
point that our country is placing additional burdens upon its taxpayers
to protect us here at home with this new military command and this new
Cabinet position, an entirely new entity of the Federal Government.
It is to be an amalgamation of some 150 different entities, and that
will change as we debate its ultimate composition. But the bottom line
is, our people are properly looking to this Government under our able
President to begin in earnest to marshal all of our assets, as we have
been doing for some months now since 9-11--but begin in earnest to
establish a military command and a Cabinet position, adding great
expenditures to our national defense needs.
Our President, the Congress and the American people know homeland
security is our most urgent priority. We pray that the steps we are
taking to prevent further attacks will be successful. But, if there are
further attacks, our people will look inward more and more to their
defensive needs here at home.
What are these threats that are requiring establishment of a new
military command, and a new Cabinet department? These threats are the
manifestation of a centuries-old ethnic and religious differences,
including small elements of radical, fundamentalist Muslims whose
message of hatred and intolerance for the United States and the West
has found resonance amongst discouraged Middle Eastern youth. The
unending cycle of violence in the Middle East fuels this sense of
despair.
We should leave no stone untouched to determine the roots of this
hatred. Are there steps we can take to demonstrate to the discouraged
residents of the Middle East that we are a peaceful nation that fights
for democracy, freedom and individual rights? Never in the history
since the formation of our Republic have our troops marched beyond the
shores of this Nation to acquire and take the lands of others. To the
contrary, each and every time they have marched, they have marched in
the cause of freedom to end tyranny and aggression and restore rights
to oppressed peoples.
That is what this Nation stands for. We respect those who pursue the
Muslim faith, as we respect the right of all to pursue their faith
without fear of persecution. We are fortunate in this Nation to have
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of persons who have emigrated from
the Muslim nations of the world to follow the Muslim faith, to come to
our United States and take up citizenship and to participate with equal
vigor and enthusiasm in our way of life and the goals of this Nation.
We are very proud to have them here.
I think we have to begin to send a message to that part of the world
in every way we possibly can. There exists a very skillfully set up
means of communication, primarily through one television station that
is followed every day by many in the Arab world which portrays and
misrepresents this Nation to the Arab world. It exploits the sense of
discouragement that exists in the region and engenders more and more
ferment, which is then directed at Israel and the West, but most
specifically, at our Nation.
The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian
people generates--I cannot quantify it, but that seemingly unending
conflict generates hatred that grows and multiplies in the Arab world
and is ultimately directed towards this country. That is why I think we
should look at every single resource available to us to try to bring
about the cessation of those hostilities, while simultaneously
encouraging governments in the region to bring truth, democracy and
opportunity to their nations. I believe it would lessen some measure of
the hatred being directed to this country--hatred which results in
daily and weekly threats and warnings to the American people.
I believe NATO should examine for itself whether or not it could play
a role, if it were invited by both sides to come in, and provide a
peacekeeping role to enable the two warring factions to sit down over a
period of time--in relative peace, secured by capable NATO peacekeepers
who are credible to both sides and engender cooperation--and,
hopefully, resolve their differences and have a lasting peace
agreement.
I said that very clearly to these Ambassadors yesterday. I have said
it on the floor of this Senate. I will continue to say it on the floor
of the Senate. Because as we approach this issue of the new nations
joining NATO--and I have been active in the past, and I will be active
in the future--those nations I think primarily are focused on what NATO
can do for them to give them protection within their own specific
geographic areas.
I am not entirely sure what the threats are that most concern these
nations aspiring to NATO membership. Europe basically is peaceful
today, but they look to NATO to ensure their protection as sovereign
nations. That they should do. But, are they equally prepared to
contribute to the military organizations in NATO.
The Senate, for that purpose, authorized $55 million to help the
aspirant nations improve their militaries to meet the standards
established by NATO for new members. That is a very important process.
I have always believed in the past that perhaps we moved too quickly
in inviting new nations to join NATO, but I will put that aside for the
moment. But I do ask those aspirant nations to begin to focus on the
trouble spots in Europe, the trouble spots in the Middle East, and say
to themselves, if NATO were to become involved: Are we willing to
shoulder our proportionate part of the responsibilities which could
involve our troops becoming peacekeepers in the Middle East? Stop to
think about that.
I believe, in the course of the deliberations on NATO enlargement,
those questions should be put specifically to the aspirant nations
desiring to join. I commend our Ambassador, Ambassador Burns, U.S.
Ambassador to NATO. He is extraordinarily well schooled, a highly
principled professional, devoting his life to diplomacy. He is the
right man at the right time in that particular job.
So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly about this. I know my views
are not shared at the moment. Perhaps the President will take
cognizance of this proposal as he is preparing his very important
message on the Middle East. However, I just think there is no corner of
this problem that should not be fully explored before it is summarily
rejected.
We are making a very significant contribution to NATO. It is
important. Hopefully, we will do it again next year. But in the ensuing
year, as we begin to prepare ourselves here at home, all of the dollars
of our budget then become under greater scrutiny.
I think it would be important for NATO to at least consider--on the
assumption that it is invited--a peacekeeping role in the Middle East.
However, it cannot be forced upon the people of Israel; they are very
proud of their ability to defend themselves. However, I think it is
important that this proposal be considered by NATO and that the nations
indicating a desire to join NATO are likewise consulted as to their
views.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________