[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.




                          ____________________