[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5941-S5943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Andrew P. Bremberg
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my
opposition to the nomination of Andrew Bremberg to be Representative of
the United States to the Office of the United Nations in Geneva. He is
not qualified for this position, and his views on women's rights and
access to reproductive healthcare conflict with longstanding positions
of the U.S. Government and more than three-quarters of the American
public.
I take my position as ranking member for the Foreign Relations
Committee seriously. I have a duty to thoroughly vet all nominees who
come before the committee whether they be political nominees like Mr.
Bremberg or career civil servants.
The criteria I use to determine their fitness to represent our
country abroad include their foreign policy experience, their core
values, and whether they will be responsive and honest with Congress as
we conduct our oversight. I am disappointed to say that Mr. Bremberg
fails even these basic criteria. He has no relevant foreign policy
experience.
I repeat, the nominee to represent the United States at Geneva has no
foreign policy experience. Mr. Bremberg has served as Assistant to the
President and Senior Advisor for Domestic Policy at the White House and
as a political appointee to the Department of Health and Human Services
in the Bush administration.
When it comes to Mr. Bremberg's core values, his nomination hearing
left me deeply troubled. Our voice at Geneva must stand up for the core
principle that reproductive rights are human rights; yet Mr. Bremberg
made clear that he opposes access to reproductive health services for
women and girls who are victims of sexual violence in conflict in the
world. This radical view of women's rights and access to reproductive
healthcare is totally outside the mainstream, not just for the
Democratic Party but the Republican Party and the American people at
large. That is why 40 reproductive health groups wrote a joint letter
opposing Mr. Bremberg's nomination.
Moreover, in his positions at the White House, Mr. Bremberg led and
advanced divisive and incendiary policy proposals, such as the infamous
Muslim ban Executive order and the addition of a citizenship question
on the census.
When questioned on these subjects, Mr. Bremberg frequently cited
confidentiality interests and declined to elaborate further. When
pressed by Senators on whether he was exerting any form of privilege or
executive privilege, he insisted he was not; yet he continued to refuse
to answer questions. Clearly, we cannot rely on this nominee to be
honest and forthright with this body.
Beyond Mr. Bremberg's lack of experience, his extreme far-right
views, and his lack of respect for Congress, there is the issue of his
erroneous declarations on government documents. Indeed, his nomination
was significantly delayed because my staff discovered Mr. Bremberg's
claim that he had terminated from his political consulting company--of
which Trump for America was a client--when the truth is he did not. In
fact, Mr. Bremberg did not terminate his political consulting firm
until forced to as part of the Foreign Relations Committee's vetting
process.
Once again, the Trump administration has displayed a basic inability
to conduct even the most cursory vetting to ensure that a nominee is
qualified and fit to hold office, free from potential financial or
ethical conflicts of interest.
We have nominees with restraining orders, nominees who have failed to
mention sexual harassment lawsuits, and nominees whose virulent, troll-
like approach to social media should disqualify them from holding any
office, much less a Senate-confirmed representative of the American
people.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has decided to advance
unqualified and unfit nominees even as it withdraws a number of
qualified civil servant nominees from consideration.
The failure of the political leadership at the State Department to
stand up and defend qualified, veteran Ambassadors when they come under
fire from the White House is nothing short of cowardice.
It was reported last week that Fiona Hill, the former White House
foreign policy adviser, concluded that one Trump administration
Ambassador was so unprepared for his job that he actually posed a
national security risk. Mr. Bremberg is cut from the same mold.
If his performance before the Foreign Relations Committee
demonstrated anything, it is that his views are completely outside
those of mainstream America. He is unprepared to represent our Nation
on the world stage, and he has little to no respect for the Senate and
the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government. Surely, we can
do better than this. The American people certainly deserve better than
this.
I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination and to demand that this
administration nominate an ambassador to the United Nations
organization in Geneva who is worthy of representing our country on the
world stage.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos.
946 and 947 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 946 and No. 947) were withdrawn.
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the
Republic of North Macedonia
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the accession of
the Republic of North Macedonia to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and to encourage my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of
this protocol.
As we know, this past April marked the 70th anniversary of the NATO
alliance, the world's strongest and most successful political military
alliance in the history of the world.
In honor of this, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a
hearing to reflect on the alliance's successful past and to consider
its future. The Senate also passed and recognized NATO's many
accomplishments, and the resolution I authored, S. Res. 123, did so. I
am grateful to have another opportunity to demonstrate strong Senate
support for NATO by welcoming North Macedonia as a new member. As we
all know, this matter has been in the works for a long time.
NATO was founded by the United States and 11 other countries after
the shock of the Soviet blockade of Berlin. The Berlin airlift in 1948
made us realize the significant and real threat that the Soviet Union
posed to peace and prosperity. That conflict is far behind us, but NATO
has remained a critical piece of the framework that supports our
collective security.
NATO worked to help the United States in Afghanistan after the
attacks of September 11 and has ended genocides and maintained peace in
the Balkans. It has trained troops of the new Iraqi Government; it has
run air policing missions on Europe's eastern flank; it has helped end
the genocide in Darfur; and it provided assistance to the United States
after Hurricane Katrina. Most importantly, it has maintained a period
of unprecedented peace among the major European powers.
NATO has proven to be not only a military success but also a
political and economic one. NATO's security umbrella has provided the
kind of stable environment necessary for economic growth and
investment. Former Soviet bloc countries clamored for--and continue to
clamor for--NATO membership, not only for the protection against Russia
that they sought and seek but for the economic strength that membership
could foster.
U.S. trade with fellow NATO members remains vital to the U.S.
economy. NATO allies remain the largest
[[Page S5942]]
source of foreign, direct investment to the United States.
NATO is not perfect. It faces several challenges from within. First
is the need to invest more in defense. Those of us who serve on the
Foreign Relations Committee have for many, many years urged our friends
and colleagues--the majority of whom are not in compliance--about the
need to invest more in defense. But the number of allies spending 2
percent of their GDP on defense and 20 percent of their defense budget
on equipment has increased, adding more than $100 billion in European
defense spending. Eight allies currently meet this pledge, but it is
critical that all allies meet their Wales Summit commitment by 2024.
Second, NATO faces different security threats in different parts of
the alliance. Southern Europe is understandably worried about migrant
flows, while Eastern Europe faces the challenge of Russian military
buildup along its borders and domestic disinformation campaigns sowing
disorder by the Russians, just as we know Russia has attempted to do
here in the USA.
NATO has recently begun to think about security risks that China
poses to individual allies and the alliance as a whole.
Tackling all of these security risks will be challenging. But if NATO
allies commit to the alliance and needed reforms, NATO will be up to
the task.
Bringing a new member into the alliance also prompts us to reassess
the status of current members, and I feel compelled to address the
growing discussion regarding NATO allies that do not uphold the
democratic principles enshrined in the treaty's preamble.
I agree that there are NATO allies whose democracies are weakening
instead of strengthening and whose recent behavior does not demonstrate
a commitment to the alliance. To fix these issues, the alliance must
work from within.
There is no other alliance in the world like NATO. China and Russia
do not have allies. They have short-term, transactional-only partners
they have bullied into cooperation. NATO's strength and success come
from its commitment to the allies and to working through problems when
they arise.
On the expansion of NATO itself, which is what we are here to deal
with today, since 1949, NATO has expanded 7 times and now includes 29
countries. The entrance of North Macedonia will make 30. Adding a 30th
member during the alliance's 70th year sends a strong signal to our
fellow allies and enemies alike of the continued strength of this
alliance.
The U.S. Senate's consideration of North Macedonia as a member of
NATO is a piece of long-delayed and unfinished business. North
Macedonia was originally eligible for NATO entry in 2008 and was to
have joined the alliance alongside Croatia and Albania. As we know, an
ongoing dispute about North Macedonia's name prevented that from
happening. But the leaders of both North Macedonia and Greece
demonstrated great political courage in concluding the Prespa agreement
earlier this year, which has made today's decision possible.
The courage of Prime Minister Zaev and former Prime Minister Tsipras
to move the situation in the Balkans forward should be applauded. I met
with both leaders this year to thank and congratulate them.
Not only does Prespa pave the way forward for North Macedonia into
both NATO and the European Union, but it is an excellent example of how
other conflicts in the region could be resolved.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its hearing earlier
this year to consider North Macedonia's eligibility for alliance, the
committee heard strong and unequivocal testimony from top officials at
the Departments of State and Defense that North Macedonia would be a
strong partner to the allies and is ready for the requirements of NATO
membership.
After reviewing all relevant facts and holding hearings and meetings
with NATO, U.S., and North Macedonian officials for the better part of
this year, I am confident that North Macedonia is ready to fulfill its
NATO obligations and will benefit the alliance. It was ready in 2008
and is ready now. North Macedonia has a credible plan to meet the 2-
percent spending requirement by 2024 and is already on track to spend
20 percent on equipment. It hosts the Krivolak training area, a top-
notch Army training facility that has already been utilized by many
U.S. soldiers. Strategically, North Macedonia's membership would
provide NATO a direct land path from the Aegean to the Adriatic Sea,
facilitating military movements should they ever be needed. It will
continue to contribute soldiers to NATO's international mission as it
has done in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2002.
North Macedonia isn't perfect. As a small country with a young
democracy, it will certainly require further government reforms and
military modernization as have most new NATO allies. For example, it
will need to continue its transition from legacy Soviet equipment,
further reform its intelligence services, and above all, resist Russian
interference and continue to strengthen its anti-corruption efforts. I
urge North Macedonia to make these reforms and to continue on its
positive path inside the alliance with the help of its other democratic
NATO allies.
Expanding NATO to include North Macedonia is about what the country
will bring to the alliance and what the alliance brings to North
Macedonia, but it is not just about North Macedonia and its
qualifications for membership. Through its open-door policy, NATO has
promised membership to any European country that fulfills the
requirements of the alliance. Accepting North Macedonia as a new member
is a strong symbol and a message for European countries with NATO
aspirations that with hard work and perseverance, along with the
willingness to make tough reform decisions, they can provide a better
future for their people. As long as countries honor this commitment,
NATO's door should and will remain open.
It is important to note that this is a strong anti-Russian vote.
Standing here today, I can tell you the Russians are very much opposed
to this, not the least of which is exemplified by the way they resisted
this and pushed back against this as North Macedonia attempted to get
this done for their people.
I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, this day is a long
time in the making, and I am pleased it is finally here.
I urge all of my colleagues to support North Macedonia's bid to
become our newest NATO ally, No. 30, by voting in favor of this
protocol.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the resolution of
ratification.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS,
AN UNDERSTANDING, AND CONDITIONS.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia, which was
opened for signature at Brussels on February 6, 2019, and
signed that day on behalf of the United States of America
(the ``Protocol'') (Treaty Doc. 116-1), subject to the
declarations of section 2 and the conditions 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 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
[[Page S5943]]
(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 North Macedonia, or its
destabilization arising from external subversion, would
threaten the stability of Europe and jeopardize United States
national security interests;
(C) North Macedonia, having established a democratic
government and having demonstrated a willingness to meet the
requirements of membership, including those necessary to
contribute to the defense of all NATO members, is 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 North Macedonia will
strengthen NATO, enhance stability in Southeast 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 North Macedonia), 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
continue to move towards the guideline outlined in the 2014
Wales Summit Declaration to 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.
(7) Support for north macedonia's reform process.--The
Senate declares that--
(A) North Macedonia has made difficult reforms and taken
steps to address corruption, but the United States and other
NATO member states should not consider this important process
complete and should continue to urge additional reforms; and
(B) North Macedonia and Greece's conclusion of the Prespa
Agreement, which resolved a long-standing bilateral dispute,
has made possible the former's invitation to NATO, and the
United States and other NATO members should continue to press
both nations to persevere in their continued implementation
of the Agreement and encourage a strategic partnership
between the two nations.
SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following condition: Prior to the deposit of
the instrument of ratification, the President shall certify
to the Senate as follows:
(1) The inclusion of North Macedonia in NATO will not have
the effect of increasing the overall percentage share of the
United States in the common budgets of NATO.
(2) The inclusion of North Macedonia 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
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of North Macedonia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the adoption of
the resolution of ratification of Treaty Document No. 116-1.
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. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 327 Ex.]
YEAS--91
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Lee
Paul
NOT VOTING--7
Bennet
Booker
Harris
Isakson
Sanders
Warren
Whitehouse
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 2.
Two-thirds of Senators present, a quorum being present, have voted in
the affirmative. The resolution of the ratification to the protocol of
the North Atlantic Treaty of the Republic of North Macedonia is agreed
to.
The Senator from Indiana.