[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 130 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3897-S3899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           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.