NATO Support Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 676, critical legislation that expresses the unified opposition of Congress to any attempt by the President to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States to remain a member in good standing of NATO and its commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and its principle of collective defense.

In the aftermath of World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history, the United States, Canada, and their Western Europe allies founded the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) on April 14, 1949 in Washington, D.C.

Founded on the principle of collective defense, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that, ``The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.''

In the 69 years since the Treaty's ratification, Article 5 has only been invoked once, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when NATO members came to the aid of the United States.

NATO sent seven planes with 830 crewmen from 13 countries to protect American skies until May 2002, marking the first time in American history that the continental United States was protected by foreign forces.

NATO allies and partners have stood with the United States in joint operations in the Western Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world.

Until the current President took office, every American president since the treaty's signing in 1949--Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama--has publicly reaffirmed the American commitment to Article 5.

American presidents have affirmed this nation's commitment to come to the aid of any NATO member that is under attack.

That is the symbolic meaning of the immortal words spoken by President Kennedy in

West Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate in 1963: ``Ich bien ein Berliner.''

Mr. Speaker, the principle of collective defense is the core of NATO's founding treaty and the NATO alliance has been the backbone of American national security and foreign policy for nearly 70 years.

The strength and solidarity of this western alliance kept Western Europe whole, prosperous, and free and paved the way for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, many of which have now been integrated into NATO.

The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but Article 5 does not increase the chance of war.

Rather, NATO is a bulwark against the outbreak of war because it deters aggression by any adversary.

As a result, NATO is the most successful military alliance in world history, successfully deterring the outbreak of a third world war, seeing the Cold War to a victorious conclusion, and protecting the principle of territorial integrity.

This is why I strongly support H.R. 676, which reaffirms the commitment of the Congress to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

The legislation also expresses support for the agreement reached at the 2014 NATO Wales Summit calling upon each NATO member nation to allocate at least two percent of its gross domestic product to defense by 2024.

The legislation also expresses congressional support for robust United States funding for the European Deterrence Initiative, which increases the ability of the United States and its allies to deter and defend against Russian aggression.

Finally, H.R. 676 provides that no funds are authorized to be appropriated, obligated, or expended to take any action to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 14, 1949, in Washington, D.C., between the United States of America and the other 15 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty 16 Organization.

I urge all Members to join me in affirming the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty, which has kept the peace on the European continent for nearly 70 years and continues to serve as a bulwark and deterrent to Russian aggression and its long-held strategic objective of splitting the Western Alliance that has done more than any other collective enterprise in history to preserve and maintain international peace.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 676) to reiterate the support of the Congress of the United States for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 676, reiterating the support of the Congress of the United States for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the author of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta). I was glad to join him as an original cosponsor, and I am grateful as well to our ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for his strong support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly 70 years, the NATO alliance has been the bedrock of transatlantic peace, security, and stability. For seven decades, NATO has been synonymous with Western democracy.

The organization's architects had a tremendous vision, and that vision translated into the most successful political military alliance in history, an alliance that won the Cold War, that brought peace to the Balkans, that fought terrorism in Afghanistan, that today is guarding against Russian aggression in Europe and training forces in Iraq and elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, most notably from the President, that NATO is obsolete, that it is ill-suited to 21st century challenges. That is just plain wrong.

Would we be safer without Article 5, the principle that says an attack on one is an attack on all, an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members, the commitment that brought our NATO allies to fight at our side after September 11? Would we be better off without 28 other countries that share our values and that know how to fight together effectively? Of course not.

NATO is not a burden, Mr. Speaker. It is a bulwark against aggressive forces that seek to undermine democracy and the rule of law, against strongmen who flout international law and act as though might makes right.

NATO is our greatest strategic advantage, one built over time and at great sacrifice. We simply cannot cede such an advantage. Past and future generations alike would never forgive the squandering of something so precious. We cannot betray our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by sending them into battle alone, without capable allies to share the burden.

So this bill, again, reiterates Congress' commitment to NATO. It would also prohibit any withdrawal from NATO.

I am glad we are considering it so early in this Congress. It sends a clear message to our allies, to our adversaries, and to the administration that this branch of government fully supports the alliance, the collective defense of our allies, and peace across the North Atlantic region.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), the author of this legislation who has worked very hard on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a very respected member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me again, in closing, thank my friend from Texas (Mr. McCaul); Mr. Panetta; our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer; and all of this bill's sponsors.

As this debate has made perfectly clear, there is no partisan disagreement in this body when it comes to the importance of NATO.

Right now, we are dealing with an adversary in Russia that desires nothing more than to see the western alliance splinter. Vladimir Putin's aim is to undermine democracy, to split us apart from our allies, to drive division in the organizations that have kept Russia in check.

The last thing the United States should do is send mixed signals about our commitment, as this President, unfortunately, has done. It plays right into Putin's hands.

From Congress, you will get no such ambiguity. We hope our allies hear that and we hope Putin hears it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill strongly, I urge Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. Obviously, I would like to share my appreciation of Chairman Engel for everything that he has done as a leader of all of his constituents in his district and, more importantly, all of our fellow countrymen and -women here in the United States of America; as well as Ranking Member McCaul; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 676, the NATO Support Act. This is a bipartisan bill that allows Congress to assert our Nation's support for NATO; to answer anybody who questions the purpose of this alliance; and to reaffirm the NATO pledge, that an armed attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

The mutual defense pledge is why NATO has been the most successful military alliance in human history. It is an interdependency that has stood as a sturdy, strong, and sound anchor for peace that has prevented new world wars, fostered Western prosperity, and advanced democratic governance.

It has been the will of our Nation, the United States of America, to lead and to finance the defense of other nations, which has allowed them to develop and prosper economically, and to expand and evolve democratically.

Yet, at the same time, Moscow never went to war with a NATO partner. We got bases and a guarantee that we would not have to fight alone. Europe became our largest trading and investment partner and our chief diplomatic and military companion. And everybody on the European Continent got stability and peace to strengthen their democracies.

Now, all of us agree that we can continue to put pressure on our NATO partners to pay their self-stated goal of 2 percent of their GDP to this alliance. But that doesn't mean that we want to get out of NATO. In fact, doing such would be a historic mistake.

NATO is not--is not--a transactional relationship. Our sole focus can't be just on who pays and who gets what. Being a part of NATO is not like being a part of a country club. Instead, we value our NATO partners, and more importantly, we realize that the power of the NATO partnership is absolutely--absolutely--invaluable. The tangible results prove it, not just what we have seen in the past, but what we are seeing now.

In our enduring fight against terrorism, our NATO partners' will to join that effort was demonstrated just hours after the attack on 9/11, as partner nations volunteered to invoke Article 5.

Now, I served alongside many troops from many NATO countries during my service in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008. I left that country in 2008, but I can tell you, after 17 years of war, NATO troops are still there, serving alongside our sons and daughters who are serving in uniform.

When it comes to Russia, our NATO partners will continue to play an important role as a deterrent for their aggression, and they will continue to coordinate and collaborate with us as we not only ready for a conventional war but also push back against Russia's use of hybrid warfare.

NATO is instrumental in setting us apart from Russia. Why? We have allies that will stand by us; Russia does not. That is the foundation for our NATO partnership, and that is the foundation for the NATO Support Act, an act that rejects efforts to withdraw from NATO and prohibits any funds to be used as such.

It supports increased defense spending by NATO partners, as well as the funding of the European Deterrence Initiative to deter against Russian aggression. It reaffirms our unwavering support of NATO, not only as a defense pledge, not only as a partnership, but as a proven core for an international order that favors democracy and peace.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel. I also thank Daniel Silverberg from Majority Leader Hoyer's staff, Jacqueline Ramos from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Matt Manning and Jay Hernandez from my office.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully thank and ask all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, for their support on H.R. 676, the bipartisan NATO Support Act.

Madam Speaker, due to a scheduled medical procedure, I was physically absent from the House of Representatives from January 10, 2019 to February 5, 2019. During that time, I missed 44 recorded votes. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted: on Roll Call No. 22 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 23 on the Passage of H.R. 267, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 24 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 25 on the Passage of H.R. 265, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 26 on the Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 27 on the Passage of H.R. 266, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 28 on the Passage of S. 24, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 29 on the Passage of H.R. 221, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 30 on the Passage of H.R. 116, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 31 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 27, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 32 on the Passage of H. Res. 41, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 33 on the Passage of H.R. 135, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 34 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 35 on the Adoption of H. Res. 43, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 36 on the Passage of H.R. 190, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 37 on the Passage of Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern (D- MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 38 on Ordering the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 39 on the Passage of H.R. 268, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 40 on the Adoption of H. Res. 52, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 41 on the Passage of H.R. 150, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 42 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 30, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 43 on Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 44 on the Passage of H.R. 676, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 45 on the Passage of H.R. 328, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 46 on the Passage of H.J. Res 28, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 47 on the Passage of H. Res. 61, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 48 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 49 on the Passage of H.R. 648, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 50 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 51 on the Passage of H.J. Res. 31, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 52 on the Passage of H.R. 624, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 53 on the Passage of H.R. 502, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 54 on Approving of the Speaker's Journal, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 55 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 56 on the Passage of H.R. 428, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 57 on the Passage of H.R. 449, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 58 on the Passage of H.R. 769, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 59 on the Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider H. Res. 77, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 60 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 61 on the Passage of H. Res. 87, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 62 on the Passage of Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Trahan (D-MA), I would have voted ``Nay;'' on Roll Call No. 63 on the Republican Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``Yea;'' on Roll Call No. 64 on the Passage of H.R. 790, I would have voted ``Nay;'' and on Roll Call No. 65 on the Passage of H. Res. 79, I would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment to clarify a conversation we had here on the floor last week on sanctions legislation against Mr. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. My remarks were passionate and aimed at the administration's proposed policy to lift sanctions on that individual. In no way did my remarks intend to reflect on the integrity of my friend from Texas, who was, in fact, comanaging the bill to oppose that action.

As my friend from Texas knows, I admire him deeply, and I believe that he is a leader of integrity. Nothing I said last week was meant in any way to deflect from that. I wanted to clarify that publicly on the floor.

I thank my good friend for yielding me time, and I look forward to talking about the issue at hand. I, again, thank my good friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for helping Mr. Panetta bring this bill to the floor.

I rise today in support of H.R. 676, the NATO Support Act, reiterating congressional support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and prohibiting U.S. withdrawal from that organization.

As we mark 70 years of the NATO alliance this year, it is critical we recognize the invaluable role that NATO has played in protecting U.S. national interests and global stability.

NATO remains the foundation of U.S. foreign policy to promote a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. NATO

has invoked Article 5, the commitment to collective defense, only once in 70 years, and that invocation was on behalf of the United States after we were attacked on 9/11.

As a result, nearly one-third of the fatalities suffered by coalition forces when we fought in Afghanistan to rid that country of al-Qaida and the Taliban--one-third of the casualties--were from non-U.S. NATO member and partner countries.

They put their blood and their flesh on the line on behalf of this country as part of that alliance.

Despite these sacrifices, unfortunately, our President has questioned the value of NATO and falsely claimed that NATO allies owe the United States money.

As head of the United States delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and rapporteur for the political committee of that assembly, I can attest to the anxiety within NATO regarding this administration's commitment to the alliance.

Case in point: one can't talk about the U.S. commitment to Article 5 in 2019 without mentioning President Trump's failure to embrace it in full view of our NATO allies during his first Presidential trip to Brussels in 2017.

This past summer at NATO's annual summit in Brussels, President Trump injected further discord into the alliance by calling our NATO ally, Germany, a ``captive of Russia'' and demanding that ``delinquent'' alliance members increase their defense spending ``immediately.''

The President's provocative comments undermined the summit's goal of projecting unity in the face of renewed Russian aggression, especially given that they occurred just days before what turned out to be a very difficult, if not disastrous, Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, Russia continues its forcible and illegal occupation in the Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and parts of Moldova, and its attack on democracies throughout Europe and even in our own country.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Panetta's bill. This bill affirms the U.S. support for NATO and preempts any attempts to withdraw from the same.