[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.

                          ____________________