[Senate Executive Report 116-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress } { Exec. Rept.
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-5
======================================================================
PROTOCOL TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON THE ACCESSION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA
_______
September 18, 2019.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Risch, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany Treaty Doc. 116-1]
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred
the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the
Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia, opened for
signature at Brussels on February 6, 2019, and signed that day
on behalf of the United States of America, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon subject to seven
declarations and one condition for the Protocol, as indicated
in the resolution of advice and consent for the treaty, and
recommends the Senate give its advice and consent to
ratification thereof, as set forth in this report and the
accompanying resolution of advice and consent.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Qualifications of the Republic of North Macedonia for NATO
Membership.......................................................2
IV. Entry Into Force.................................................3
V. Committee Action.................................................4
VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................4
VII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification.........6
VIII.Annex I.--Hearing of June 12, 2019, ``NATO Expansion: Examining
the Accession of North Macedonia''..............................11
IX. Annex II.--Business Meeting of July 25, 2019....................51
I. Purpose
This Protocol is a vehicle for inviting The Republic of
North Macedonia to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty (the
``Treaty'') in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty and
thus become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(``NATO''), with all of the privileges and responsibilities
that apply to current Allies. The core commitment made among
the Allies is embodied in the text of the Treaty, including the
collective defense provision in Article 5.
II. Background
The North Atlantic Treaty entered into force on August 24,
1949, with twelve states having ratified the Treaty. The
original parties of the Treaty, and thus the original members
of NATO, were the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark,
Norway, Iceland, and Luxembourg. The alliance has expanded
seven times: in 1952, Greece and Turkey became members; in
1955, West Germany; in 1982, Spain; in 1999, Poland, Hungary
and the Czech Republic; in 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia; in 2009, Albania,
and Croatia; and in 2017, Montenegro.
The process leading to the enlargement of the alliance has
been refined since the Cold War. NATO remains a military
alliance but has also become an agent of peace, holding new
members to higher democratic and economic standards and
creating a secure space for newly free nations to develop.
Military reform and achieving interoperability with NATO
remains essential, but the democratic character of the new
allied country is also important. The debate over the last
several enlargements has centered on what standard of political
or economic development is adequate for accession to the
alliance.
In the 1990s, Secretary of Defense William Perry
established benchmarks used to assess new members. Important
considerations include adherence to democratic elections and
free market economics, protections of individual liberty,
resolution of territorial disputes with neighbors, a commitment
to the rule of law, established democratic control of the
military, and the ability to contribute to defense commitments.
The Republic of North Macedonia has addressed these issues in
the course of its NATO membership application and the committee
has examined the results.
Engagement with NATO to assist a country's democratic and
economic development is not the end of reform. The experience
of previous NATO enlargements suggests that countries continue
the reform process after admission, and North Macedonia must
similarly continue this process.
III. Qualifications of the Republic of North Macedonia
for NATO Membership
Since the mid-1990's, NATO has been heavily involved in
peacekeeping operations in the Western Balkans, a region that
has struggled with instability, and remains volatile. NATO has
also worked hard to strengthen institutional ties with the
fledgling democracies of the region, in the hope that full
integration with Euro-Atlantic institutions such as NATO and
the European Union (``EU'') would ensure long-term stability
and security.
Since gaining independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, North
Macedonia's key foreign policy goals have been EU and NATO
membership. Key to realizing those goals has been the
resolution of an issue with neighboring Greece over the
country's name. The Republic of North Macedonia has also
improved relations with its other NATO-member neighbors,
concluding a Friendship Treaty with Bulgaria in 2017, and
expanding its relationship with Albania.
NATO invited North Macedonia to begin formal accession
talks in July 2018, after the Republic of Macedonia and Greece
concluded the Prespa Agreement. In it, the Republic of
Macedonia formally changed its name to the Republic of North
Macedonia, and Greece removed its objections to that nation's
NATO and EU memberships. North Macedonia has also begun to
implement the various requirements of the Prespa Agreement in a
timely manner. By 2008, North Macedonia had already fulfilled
the technical requirements set out in the Membership Action
Plan (``MAP'') it began in 1999. However, after its NATO and EU
prospects were sidelined in 2008, North Macedonia did indeed
backslide both on defense matters and on its reform agenda. In
2008, its defense spending was over 2 percent of its GDP; by
2018, that had dropped to 0.98 percent. Spending has since
increased and North Macedonia now has a clear and credible plan
to reach 2 percent by 2024.
Since beginning its MAP in 1999, the Republic of North
Macedonia has adopted a wide range of laws aiming to bolster
the effectiveness and transparency of government institutions,
and the independence of the judiciary, among other things.
However, after a long period of positive changes and reforms,
the country relaxed its commitment to those reforms when NATO
membership was put out of reach in 2008. That negative trend
has reversed since 2017, and North Macedonia has recently made
strong progress on reform, including the establishment of a
Special Prosecutor's Office focused on corruption and abuse of
office. Nevertheless, North Macedonia continues to face
challenges in the following areas: (1) rule of law, especially
judicial reform and the fight against corruption and nepotism;
(2) good governance, particularly transparency measures and
public administration reform; (3) security matters, including
intelligence and security sector reform, and full
implementation of its Strategic Defense Review plans; and (4)
military matters, including removal of unnecessary military
infrastructure and surplus arms, and continuing to upgrade and
update its systems.
In its 2019 annual progress report on the Republic of North
Macedonia, the European Union noted that the Government had
continued ``to deepen the reform momentum'' and had ``taken
steps to restore checks and balances, and to strengthen
democracy and the rule of law.'' However, they also called on
North Macedonia's leadership to work to restore public trust in
the judicial system, demonstrate its commitment to the
continued fight against corruption in the country, and increase
accountability and transparency in public administration.
IV. Entry Into Force
The Protocol will enter into force when all of the current
Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty have notified the
Government of the United States of America, which is the
depositary for the North Atlantic Treaty, of their acceptance
of the Protocol. Once the Protocol has entered into force, the
Secretary General of NATO shall extend an invitation to the
Republic of North Macedonia to accede to the North Atlantic
Treaty and in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty, North
Macedonia shall become a Party to the Treaty on the date it
deposits its instrument of accession with the Government of the
United States of America.
V. Committee Action
In the 116th Congress, the Committee held a public hearing
on the accession of the Republic of North Macedonia to NATO on
June 12, 2019, and testimony was received from the Honorable
Philip T. Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs at the Department of State; and
Ms. Kathryn Wheelbarger, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs at the Department of
Defense. A transcript of this hearing is included as Annex I to
this Executive Report, beginning on page 11. [On July 25, 2019,
the committee considered this Protocol and ordered it favorably
reported by voice vote, with a quorum present. A transcript of
the July 25 business meeting is included as Annex II to this
Executive Report, beginning on page 51.]
VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments
The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the
Republic of North Macedonia has the potential to make
contributions as a member of NATO. North Macedonia has already
demonstrated this potential through its participation, since
2002, in NATO combat and training operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Further, it has long been involved in providing
logistical support for NATO's Kosovo Force (``KFOR'') and NATO
and KFOR troops have benefited from the use of the Krivolak
Training Area, one of the best ranges in Europe.
The admission of North Macedonia to the alliance will have
a stabilizing effect on Southeastern Europe and will extend
NATO's reach in this vulnerable area, providing uninterrupted
travel from the Black Sea across the Balkan Peninsula to the
Adriatic. North Macedonia's membership will encourage the
continued spread of peace and democracy in the region, and its
willingness to contribute to ongoing NATO operations will
augment NATO's resources.
It will take some time for North Macedonia to cement the
political and economic gains made in recent years. North
Macedonia still needs to make greater efforts to enhance the
rule of law, fight corruption, and maintain security sector
reforms. The Committee believes, however, that as demonstrated
by its dedication to pursuing NATO membership despite many
obstacles, North Macedonia's commitment to NATO is strong and
that its membership in the alliance is warranted.
RESOLUTION
The Committee has included in the proposed resolution for
the Protocol seven declarations and one condition, which are
discussed below.
DECLARATIONS
Declaration 1. Reaffirmation that Membership in NATO Remains a Vital
National Security Interest of the United States
Declaration 1 restates that U.S. membership in NATO is a
vital national security interest for the United States. For
seventy years, NATO has served as the foremost organization to
defend the territory of the countries in the North Atlantic
area against all external threats. NATO was successful in
ensuring the survival of democratic governments throughout the
Cold War, and NATO has established a process of cooperative
security planning that enhances the security of the United
States and its allies, while distributing the financial burden
of defending the democracies of Europe and North America among
the Allies.
Declaration 2. Strategic Rationale for NATO Enlargement
Declaration 2 lays out the strategic rationale for the
inclusion of the Republic of North Macedonia in NATO. NATO
members have determined that, consistent with Article 10 of the
North Atlantic Treaty, North Macedonia 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 that
extending membership to North Macedonia will enhance the
stability of Southeast Europe, which is in the interests of the
United States.
Declaration 3. Support for NATO's Open Door Policy
Declaration 3 supports NATO's Open Door Policy for any
European country that expresses interest in the alliance and is
able to meet the obligations of membership.
Declaration 4. Future Consideration of Candidates for Membership in
NATO
Declaration 4 declares that the consideration of future
members in NATO provided for under Article 10 of the Senate-
approved North Atlantic Treaty is subject to the requirement
for advice and consent under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of
the United States Constitution. Article 10 of the North
Atlantic Treaty provides for an open door to the admission into
NATO of other European countries that are in a position to
further the principles of the Treaty and that can contribute to
the security of the North Atlantic area. The United States will
not support any subsequent invitation for admission to NATO if
the prospective member cannot fulfill the obligations and
responsibilities of NATO membership in a manner that serves the
overall political and strategic interests of the United States.
The Senate emphasizes that no state will be invited to become a
member of NATO unless the Executive Branch fulfills the
Constitutional requirement for seeking the advice of the
Senate, a consensus decision to proceed is reached in NATO, and
ratification is achieved according to the national procedures
of each NATO member, including the consent to ratification by
the Senate.
Declaration 5. Influence of Non-NATO Members on NATO Decisions
Declaration 5 states that non-NATO members shall not have
the ability to impact the decision-making process of the
alliance in relation to NATO enlargement. Outside forces have
attempted to interfere in the Republic of North Macedonia's
domestic politics and build opposition to North Macedonia's
inclusion in NATO, as well as to the conclusion of the Prespa
Agreement. The Senate notes such concerns and emphasizes that
non-NATO members shall not have the ability to influence the
decision-making process of NATO enlargement.
Declaration 6. Support for 2014 Wales Summit Defense Spending Benchmark
Declaration 6 reaffirms support for the resource
commitments by alliance members outlined in the 2014 Wales
Summit Declaration. These commitments obligate each NATO member
to spend a minimum of two percent of GDP on defense and twenty
percent of their defense budget on major equipment, including
research and development. The Senate notes that at this time
only eight members of the alliance meet the obligation for
overall defense spending and encourages all members to address
this disparity at the soonest opportunity.
Declaration 7. Support for The Republic of North Macedonia's Democratic
Reform Process
Declaration 7 affirms that the Republic of North Macedonia
has made significant progress in implementing reforms to
address corruption, but recognizes that North Macedonia must
continue to implement a robust reform agenda. It further
recognizes the conclusion of the Prespa Agreement between North
Macedonia and Greece and encourages both nations to continue
their implementation of the Agreement and encourages the growth
of a strategic partnership between the two nations.
CONDITIONS
Condition 1. Presidential Certification
Condition 1 requires the President to certify, prior to the
deposit of the instrument of ratification for the Protocol,
that (1) the inclusion of the Republic of North Macedonia in
NATO will not have the effect of increasing the overall
percentage share of the United States in the NATO common
budget; and (2) the inclusion of North Macedonia in the
alliance will not detract from the ability of the United States
to meet or fund its military requirements outside the North
Atlantic Area.
VII. Text of Resolution of Advice and
Consent to Ratification
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
Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession
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
(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 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 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 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.
(B) 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.
Annex I.--Hearing of June 12, 2019, ``NATO Expansion: Examining the
Accession of North Macedonia''
NATO EXPANSION: EXAMINING THE
ACCESSION OF NORTH MACEDONIA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Johnson, Gardner,
Romney, Young, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Murphy, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. This morning we are going to talk about the
potential accession of North Macedonia as a member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.
April 4th marked, as we all know, the 70th anniversary of
NATO. I am glad to have another opportunity for this committee
to discuss the importance of this alliance.
NATO is the world's most successful political-military
alliance in the history of the world. Founded by the United
States and 11 other nations in 1949, it has expanded seven
times since its founding and now includes 29 countries. North
Macedonia would make 30.
The Senate's consideration of North Macedonia as a member
of NATO is a piece of unfinished and long-delayed business.
North Macedonia was originally eligible for NATO entry in 2008
and was set to join the alliance, alongside Croatia and Albania
in 2009. An ongoing dispute over North Macedonia's name
prevented that from happening, but the leaders of both North
Macedonia and Greece showed great political courage, given the
tensions in each of the countries on that issue, in reaching an
agreement earlier this year that has made today's discussion
possible. The courage of the prime ministers to move the
situation in the Balkans forward should be applauded. Not only
does this Prespa Agreement pave the way forward for North
Macedonia in both NATO and the European Union, but it is an
excellent example of how other conflicts in the region could be
and should be resolved.
Over the past 7 years, NATO has remained a critical piece
of the framework that supports our collective security, and
while this small nation has not yet been inside the alliance,
North Macedonia has worked alongside NATO for many years. From
2002 until 2014, North Macedonia deployed about 4,000 troops in
support of the international security assistance force in
Afghanistan. It is currently supporting the Resolute Support
mission to assist the Afghan Security Forces. The country has
also provided support to the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in
Kosovo. Recently NATO troops have begun training on a North
Macedonian military training range, which is considered to be
one of the best in Europe.
NATO has proven not only to be a military success, but a
political and economic one. NATO's security umbrella has
provided the kind of stable political and security environment
necessary for economic growth and investment. Since joining
NATO in 2017, Montenegro has seen forward investment from
members of the alliance double, and North Macedonia has high
hopes for the same.
Like most nations, North Macedonia is not without
challenges. As a small country with a young democracy, it will
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, continue to strengthen its anti-corruption
institutions, and importantly, resist Russian interference.
Yet, through its contributions to NATO missions, its
already substantial democratic reforms, and the Prespa
Agreement, North Macedonia has demonstrated robust commitment
to the alliance and its values.
Just as important as a commitment to shared values is
allies' commitment to burden sharing. Seven allies currently
meet their pledge to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, and 18
are on track to do so by 2024. We urge them to continue
aggressively in that direction. North Macedonia has pledged to
meet the 2 percent spending requirement and is already in the
process of spending 20 percent of that amount on equipment.
Many Americans might wonder how bringing a small country
like North Macedonia into NATO will strengthen the alliance.
North Macedonia brings military capabilities like its training
center that I mentioned earlier, but it also brings political
stability to a region long fraught with conflict. In the era of
great power competition, it solidifies Western values in a
country that Russia has been desperate to keep in its sphere of
influence. North Macedonia has wisely declined.
The West must honor commitments made to countries that have
painstakingly made the reforms the alliance has asked of them.
Otherwise, they may have nowhere to turn but towards Russia and
China.
Bringing a 30th member into NATO during its 70th year is a
strong signal to allies and enemies alike that NATO continues
to be critical to the United States for her security and
alliance and that it is adapting to modern challenges.
I look forward to hearing your testimonies and to hopefully
welcoming North Macedonia into the alliance.
With that, Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
NATO is vital to the security of the United States, and
approving its expansion is one of the most important
responsibilities that this committee has.
Let me first acknowledge the presence of North Macedonia's
charge d'affaires, Marijan Pop-Angelov. We appreciate you being
here and joining with us.
And let me also acknowledge our newly confirmed Ambassador
to North Macedonia, Kate Byrnes, who is with us as well.
Congratulations, Ambassador. You have gone through the gauntlet
successfully. So we look forward to your service.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I would like to
ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for North
Macedonia's NATO bid from U.S. delegates to the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly be entered into the record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
[The material referred to above is located at the end of
this hearing's transcript.]
Senator Menendez. Today's hearing would not be happening
without the Prespa Agreement between Greece and North
Macedonia, which resolved the country's longstanding name
dispute and came into force this past February. I appreciate
the hard work that these countries undertook, as well as the
diligent work of American diplomats, to make Prespa a reality.
I look forward to hearing more from the State Department on
North Macedonia's progress towards implementing its commitments
under the agreement.
I also hope to more broadly examine the geopolitical
context of North Macedonia's candidacy. We know that the
Kremlin tried to thwart the Prespa Agreement by clandestinely
funding disinformation and political manipulation campaigns
against the name change in both North Macedonia and Greece. We
must again make clear no country outside of the alliance gets a
veto over who joins NATO, especially not Russia.
Though a small country, North Macedonia has made notable
contributions to international security missions. I understand
that North Macedonia has deployed more than 4,000 troops to
Iraq in support of U.S. efforts there. In 2018, North Macedonia
boosted its contribution in Afghanistan by 20 percent. It has
also supported missions in Kosovo and actively supports the
international counter-ISIS coalition, as well as that North
Macedonia is home to a military training ground, as the
chairman mentioned, unlike any other in Europe. And I look
forward to hearing how that will benefit U.S. and NATO military
readiness. These are all strong arguments in favor of its
inclusion in the alliance.
I want to stress the importance of each NATO member
spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Since 2014, countries
across the alliance have increased their defense spending in
reaction to a clear and growing threat from the Kremlin, not
necessarily bullying by President Trump. North Macedonia does
not currently meet that threshold, but it is making progress.
It is closer to reaching the second half of the Wales
Commitment, spending 20 percent of the defense budget on major
equipment. In 2019, it will reach 18 percent of the defense
budget. The North Macedonian defense minister committed to this
committee their intention to hit these targets, and we should
hold them to it.
Belonging to NATO is not just a measurement of military
capability. We were established as a club of democracies that
abide by a certain set of principles. Former Secretary of
Defense William Perry laid out some criteria when the Clinton
administration was considering new members: individual liberty
for citizens, democratic elections, the rule of law, economic
and market-based reforms, resolution of territorial disputes
with neighbors, civilian control of the military.
I would like our witnesses to address the durability of
North Macedonia's recent rule of law improvements. Following
corruption and abuses of authority under the previous
government, North Macedonia's main political parties came
together and signed the Przino Agreement to address the rule of
law issues. In keeping with the agreement, North Macedonia has
made difficult reforms and taken steps to address corruption by
appointing a special prosecutor and tackling difficult cases.
More work remains to continue to perfect North Macedonia's
democracy. NATO member states should not consider this process
complete and should urge North Macedonia to fully implement its
reform commitments.
Admission of North Macedonia into NATO would mark another
important step towards fully integrating the Balkans into
international institutions that have helped to contribute to
peace and stability over the years in Europe. There is
unfinished work for peace in the Balkans, and U.S. leadership
is necessary to resolve these long-running challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Now we are going to hear from a couple of excellent
witnesses on this.
Before I do that, I would respectfully disagree about
characterizing the President's actions of attempting to get our
allies to meet their commitments of 2 percent as bullying.
Indeed, I would think that there is not a member of this
committee that have not met with our friends and allies in this
that have not urged them in the strongest terms to meet that
commitment. The President has done the same, and as we all
know, he has a unique way of communicating ideas that are in
his mind. And so I have no doubt that he and all of us on this
committee will remain united to urge that our allies--and they
are our allies--meet their 2 percent of GDP defense commitment,
which is indeed a commitment.
So with that, we will now hear from the Honorable Philip
Reeker. He is the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs. He previously served as a
political advisor and civilian deputy at U.S. European Command.
In his distinguished career, Ambassador Reeker has also served
as Counsel General in Milan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs focused on the Balkans,
Central Europe, and Holocaust issues, and more importantly, was
U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia from 2008 to 2011.
Mr. Reeker, we welcome you and you no doubt have a very
expert and unique view of this matter. So we are interested to
hear your view. Mr. Reeker, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP T. REEKER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Menendez, and the other members of the committee. It is indeed
a pleasure for me to be here today some 11 years after I was in
this same room for my hearing to become the fifth Ambassador in
Skopje. I am really grateful for the opportunity to discuss,
along with my colleague from the Department of Defense, the
critical role that NATO plays in our security and North
Macedonia's place in the alliance.
It is my first appearance before the committee since I was
asked by Secretary Pompeo to take over the responsibilities of
former Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell, and I really look
forward to continuing to uphold the excellent standards
established by Assistant Secretary Mitchell and our Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs, and that includes working with
the members of the committee and your staffs and being
responsive to your questions and concerns. We are very grateful
for you holding this important hearing today.
I do want to thank our next Ambassador, my successor, Kate
Byrnes, who is with us today. I am absolutely delighted that
she will follow in the footsteps to continue working with North
Macedonia, which is an important friend to the United States. I
can think of no better colleague to have there representing the
United States, and she will be leading a team, along with the
Bureau of European Affairs, that focuses on exactly the issues
that Senator Menendez mentioned in terms of working with
Macedonia to continue their reforms and their strong support.
And I want to thank the committee for seeing that Kate Byrnes
was confirmed expeditiously because we are very excited to have
her get out to Skopje.
I do welcome the opportunity to explain why the
administration strongly and unequivocally supports North
Macedonia's membership in NATO. We firmly believe that North
Macedonia's membership in the alliance benefits the national
security of the United States and all Americans.
As you may know, as you heard, I have a long professional
and personal connection to the country. I did serve there at
our embassy in Skopje from 1997 to 1998 as the public affairs
officer and then later, with the advice and consent of this
committee, as Ambassador, then as Deputy Assistant Secretary
for South Central Europe.
I have seen North Macedonia develop into the strong partner
and, with the Senate's blessing, NATO ally that we need in the
Western Balkans. I was also in Skopje after the Bucharest NATO
summit in 2008, and I can tell you that the people of North
Macedonia have yearned for and earned this moment, a moment to
reflect on the long and sometimes difficult path that they have
had to travel, but one that ultimately has led to a true and
enduring commitment to peace, democracy, and prosperity for
North Macedonia and for enduring transatlantic security and
stability.
I might note that the 19th century German statesman, Otto
Von Bismarck, used to refer to the vexing Macedonia question.
Well, some years ago, with the independence of this country, we
answered that question. A democracy, multi-ethnic, that shares
its values with the transatlantic community and now is the
Republic of North Macedonia--we can continue to see that this
difficult place in the world with a complicated geography is in
fact an important element of our transatlantic security.
Let me begin by reaffirming the role of NATO. As President
Trump has said, the alliance has been the bulwark of
international peace and security for 70 years, something we
celebrated along with many of the members of the committee at
the ministerial just a couple of months ago when Secretary
Pompeo presided over the 70th anniversary celebration.
The alliance will remain the bulwark of international peace
and security, and NATO's accomplishments are many. From
deterring the former Soviet Union during the Cold War to
contributing to international security in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq, to confronting
emerging security challenges and, throughout it, all the time
welcoming new members into this critical alliance.
To be sure, we face complicated security challenges. As
outlined in the National Security Strategy, the return of great
power competition is the defining geopolitical fact of our
time, and the need to systematically prepare for this
competition is the central task of U.S. foreign policy and,
indeed, of the transatlantic alliance. The most immediate
threat to transatlantic security continues to be Russia, which
is engaged in wide-ranging, nefarious efforts to undermine the
peace and prosperity the West has built over the last 70 years.
President Putin seeks to weaken the cohesion among NATO allies
and to subvert and destabilize our democratic institutions and
processes. We also face increasing threats from China, which is
seeking a strategic foothold in Europe by employing so-called
gray zone tactics, including investments in sensitive
technologies, critical infrastructure, and natural resources.
The NATO alliance is evolving to meet these challenges by
enhancing its readiness, mobility, command structure, and
ability to face hybrid and cyber threats. Through efforts like
the NATO Readiness Initiative and additional coordination on
hybrid and cyber threats, we will be even stronger and more
prepared to face down emerging challenges. And I will let my
colleague address those in further detail.
Let me turn to North Macedonia and the benefits it will
bring to the alliance when it becomes the 30th ally.
The implementation of the historic Prespa Agreement and the
resolution of the name dispute with Greece underscore that
North Macedonia is willing to make sacrifices and dignified
compromises needed for peace and stability.
In recognition of its progress and potential, allies
unanimously agreed in July 2018 to invite the Republic of North
Macedonia to begin accession talks. And in February of this
year, allies signed the accession protocol for North Macedonia.
2 days later, in an historic moment fulfilling the promises
made in Prespa, Greece and its dynamic leadership became the
first country to ratify North Macedonia's NATO accession
protocol. To date, 16 allies have completed the parliamentary
requirements for ratification, and I would like to mention them
for the record. They are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Of
those, 11 countries have deposited their instruments of
ratification of the accession protocol.
Now, as we have heard, North Macedonia has contributed to
international operations since 2002, deploying almost 4,000
soldiers with soldiers from the United States, and North
Macedonia courageously fighting alongside each other in Iraq,
where I was able to visit the Macedonian contingent. They still
do so today in Afghanistan. And later this week, over 1,000
U.S. troops will participate in exercises alongside soldiers
from North Macedonia and other allied countries at the Krivolak
training area, already mentioned, a resource that North
Macedonia has made available for NATO exercises, and I can
attest from my experience at European Command an extremely
admired a piece of geography, and it is very important for the
kinds of exercises that our military and our alliance need to
do.
Adding North Macedonia to the alliance will make NATO
stronger, will enhance regional security and stability in what
is historically one of the least stable places in Europe. North
Macedonia takes its burden sharing seriously and has a clear
and credible plan in place to reach the 2 percent-20 percent
Wales commitment by 2024, and I reiterated that plan and those
pledges in the meeting with the minister of defense of North
Macedonia just last Friday at a conference in Bratislava.
North Macedonia also has a clear and credible plan in terms
of spending already 18 percent of its defense budget on
modernization and capabilities, and they will reach that 20
percent goal for capabilities already next year. That puts them
in the upper half of current NATO members when it comes to
meeting these key thresholds.
North Macedonia has also made great strides to meet NATO
standards by implementing deep reforms in the defense,
intelligence, and security sectors, and I have been able to
monitor that progress throughout the course of my own career.
And they have very much taken to heart the mentorship provided
by the United States and our allies, including through the
State Partnership Program where the State of Vermont and its
National Guard have been so crucial in shepherding North
Macedonia in this path.
And of course, as the chairman and Senator Menendez have
already mentioned, North Macedonia has its challenges. We have
made clear that we expect the reforms to continue and to hold.
But given the progress and clear commitment to assuming the
responsibilities of NATO membership, the administration sees an
historic opportunity to advance United States and allied
interests in the region by welcoming North Macedonia into the
alliance, with the hope that it will expand its participation
in the transatlantic community even further.
North Macedonia is an example, not just to other countries
in the Balkans, but also to other NATO aspirants. Its soldiers
have fought alongside the United States and NATO forces against
shared threats. Its leaders have demonstrated a true commitment
to carrying their share of the burden and doing their part to
secure peace, democracy, rule of law, and common defense. Over
decades now, the promise of NATO membership and broader
integration into the Euro-Atlantic family have advanced
democratic values in the country, respect for the rule of law,
and the pursuit of security and defense policies in line with
U.S. and NATO standards and objectives. This is a good thing
for the United States and our interests. It has also
incentivized countries to pursue difficult but critical
political and military reforms over the sustained period, and
our policy has yielded clear dividends.
So the rules have not changed. The open door policy is
strong and NATO membership remains to all European nations who
qualify and demonstrate the ability to contribute to alliance
security.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Menendez, and distinguished
members of the committee, I want to finish just by urging the
Senate to continue our cooperation on NATO enlargement and at
the earliest opportunity to provide its advice and consent to
U.S. ratification of the Accession Protocol for North
Macedonia.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[Ambassador Reeker's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip T. Reeker
Introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the critical role NATO plays in our security
and North Macedonia's place in the Alliance. This is my first
appearance before this committee since I was asked by the Secretary and
former Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell to assume this position. I
look forward to continuing to uphold the excellent standards set by A/S
Mitchell and the European bureau, and this includes working with the
members of this committee and being responsive to your questions and
concerns.
I welcome this opportunity to explain why the administration
strongly and unequivocally supports North Macedonia's membership in
NATO. We firmly believe that North Macedonia's membership in the
Alliance benefits the national security of the United States.
As you may know, I have a personal connection to North Macedonia--
as the former embassy spokesperson, and later Ambassador--I have seen
North Macedonia develop into the strong partner and, with the Senate's
blessing, NATO Ally we need in the Western Balkans. I was also in
Skopje after the Bucharest NATO Summit in 2008. I can tell to you that
the people of North Macedonia have yearned for--and earned--this
moment: a moment to reflect on the long and sometimes hard path they
had to travel, but one that ultimately led to an enduring commitment to
peace, democracy, and prosperity for North Macedonia.
NATO
Let me begin by reaffirming the role of NATO. As President Trump
has said, the Alliance has been the bulwark of international peace and
security for 70 years, and it will remain so. NATO's accomplishments
are many. From deterring the former Soviet Union during the Cold War,
to contributing to international security in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to confronting emerging security
challenges, and throughout it all welcoming new members into this
critical Alliance.
To be sure, we face complicated security challenges. As outlined by
the National Security Strategy, the return of great-power competition
is the defining geopolitical fact of our time, and the need to
systematically prepare for this competition is the central task of U.S.
foreign policy, and indeed, of the Transatlantic alliance. The most
immediate threat to Transatlantic security continues to be Russia,
which is engaged in wide-ranging, nefarious efforts to undermine the
peace and prosperity the West has built over the last 70 years. Putin
seeks to weaken the cohesion among NATO Allies and to subvert and
destabilize our democratic institutions and processes. We also face
increasing threats from China, which is seeking a strategic foothold in
Europe by employing so-called ``gray zone'' tactics, including
investments in sensitive technologies, critical infrastructure, and
natural resources.
The NATO Alliance is evolving to meet these challenges by enhancing
its readiness, mobility, command structure, and its ability to face
hybrid and cyber threats. Through efforts like the NATO Readiness
Initiative and additional coordination on hybrid and cyber threats, we
will be even stronger and more prepared to face down emerging
challenges.
North Macedonia's NATO Path
Let me turn to North Macedonia and the benefits it will bring to
the Alliance when it becomes the 30th Ally.
In recognition of its progress and potential, and with the
understanding that North Macedonia and Greece would reach an agreement
on the name issue, Allies unanimously agreed in July 2018 to invite
North Macedonia to begin accession talks. In February of this year,
Allies signed the accession protocol for North Macedonia. Two days
later, in a historic moment fulfilling the promises made in Prespa,
Greece became the first country to ratify North Macedonia's NATO
accession protocol. To date, in total 16 Allies have completed the
parliamentary requirements for ratification. They are: Albania,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia,
Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia. Of those Allies, 11 nations have deposited their instruments
of ratification of the Accession Protocol. The implementation of the
historic Prespa Agreement and the resolution of the name dispute with
Greece underscore that North Macedonia is willing to make sacrifices
needed for peace and stability.
North Macedonia has contributed to international operations since
2002, deploying almost 4,000 soldiers. Soldiers from the U.S. and North
Macedonia courageously fought alongside each other in Iraq, and they
still do so today in Afghanistan. Last week, over 1,000 U.S. troops
participated in exercises alongside soldiers from North Macedonia and
other Allied countries at the Krivolak Training Area, a resource North
Macedonia has made available for NATO exercises.
Adding North Macedonia to the Alliance will make NATO stronger and
enhance regional security and stability in what is historically one of
the least stable places in Europe. North Macedonia takes its burden
sharing seriously and has a clear and credible plan in place to reach
the 2 percent-20 percent Wales commitment by 2024. It is already
spending 18 percent of its defense budget on modernization with plans
to reach NATO's goal of 20 percent next year, which puts them in the
upper half of current NATO members when it comes to meeting this key
threshold. North Macedonia has also made great strides to meet NATO
standards by implementing deep reforms in the defense, intelligence,
and security sectors, and by taking to heart the mentorship provided by
the United States and our Allies.
Of course, North Macedonia also has its challenges. We have made
clear that we expect reforms to continue and to hold. But given its
progress and clear commitment to assuming the responsibilities of NATO
membership, the administration sees a historic opportunity to advance
U.S. and Allied interests in the region by welcoming North Macedonia
into the Alliance, with the hope that it will expand its participation
in the transatlantic community even further.
North Macedonia is an example, not just to other countries in the
Balkans, but also to other NATO aspirants. Its soldiers have fought
side by side with U.S. and NATO forces against shared threats. Its
leaders have demonstrated their commitment to carrying their share of
the burden and doing their part to secure peace, democracy, rule of
law, and common defense. Over decades, the promise of NATO membership
has advanced democratic values, respect for the rule of law, and the
pursuit of security and defense policies in line with U.S. and NATO
standards and objectives. It has also incentivized countries to pursue
difficult but critical political and military reforms over a sustained
period. This policy has yielded clear dividends. The rules have not
changed: the Open Door policy is strong, and NATO membership remains
open to all European nations who qualify and demonstrate the ability to
contribute to Alliance security.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Menendez, and distinguished members of
this committee, I urge the Senate to continue our cooperation on NATO
enlargement, and at the earliest opportunity to provide its advice and
consent to U.S. ratification of the Accession Protocol for North
Macedonia.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ambassador Reeker.
I think most members of this committee have already given
the advice, and we are moving along on the consent as rapidly
as we can, given our rules.
Next we will turn to Ms. Kathryn Wheelbarger. She is the
Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs. She oversees policy issues related to the
nations and international organizations of Europe, including
NATO, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Western
Hemisphere. Previously Ms. Wheelbarger served as Vice President
for Litigation and Chief Compliance Officer at CSRE, Inc. from
2011 to 2017. Ms. Wheelbarger served as Policy Director and
Counsel on the Senate Armed Services Committee and as Deputy
Staff Director and Senior Counsel on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Given that background, we are anxious to hear your
comments, Ms. Wheelbarger. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN WHEELBARGER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Wheelbarger. Good morning, Chairman Risch, Ranking
Member Menendez, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure
to be here today to describe DOD's support for North
Macedonia's membership into NATO.
I will try to be brief, and I apologize in any way that
this is duplicative of what you have heard thus far. That was
very comprehensive and we appreciate it.
For nearly 2 decades, North Macedonia has been a trusted
bilateral and multilateral partner. As the chairman and ranking
member already highlighted, they have deployed side by side
with our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for years. Moreover,
North Macedonia is the first country ever to go into combat in
Afghanistan alongside our U.S. National Guard. It has continued
to increase its troop contributions in Afghanistan over the
last 2 years, emphasizing its commitment to NATO and our shared
security goals.
North Macedonia also provides logistical support to the
NATO mission in Kosovo, as we have heard, by offering its
training facilities for NATO training missions. And just last
week, it was the center of the largest military exercise in
North Macedonia since the break-up of Yugoslavia, with more
than 2,500 NATO forces participating.
It also cooperates with U.S. counterterrorism efforts,
especially as part of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.
Significantly, North Macedonia was one of the very first
countries to commit to taking back their foreign terrorist
fighters and prosecuting under their local laws. And I cannot
overstate the importance of that leadership to worldwide
security. They are an example for the rest of the West.
North Macedonia's political commitment to defense reform
also demonstrates its dedication as a partner that upholds core
NATO values. Just recently North Macedonia completed its
strategic defense review, exerting a significant political will
to right-size its military and divest itself from legacy Soviet
equipment.
Equally important is North Macedonia's commitment to NATO
pledges. As we have heard and as the Ambassador reiterated,
North Macedonia has a credible plan to meet 2 percent and 20
percent requirements by 2024, and again, it continues to serve
as an example for other NATO allies.
North Macedonia also budgets for increases in national
expenditures to acquire Western-made equipment, including U.S.-
made infantry vehicles. Their plans will increase both their
readiness and NATO interoperability. They also have more than
900 graduates from U.S. schools and training programs such as
the International Military Education and Training program. As
you know, this program is vital. It creates enduring
connections and relationships for our mutual security interests
that sustain over decades. North Macedonia proves the value of
this program, as many of their graduates are in positions at
the highest level of government in North Macedonia.
Finally, we just celebrated, as we heard, the 25th
anniversary of its close relationship with the Vermont National
Guard through the State Partnership Program. This program is a
tangible symbol of our long-term commitments to our
relationship and addressing together our mutual security
interests.
North Macedonia's accession presents an historic
opportunity to further extend the stabilizing influence in the
Western Balkans, a key strategic region for European security.
The Department believes North Macedonia is ready for NATO
membership.
And I would like just to close by highlighting, from our
perspective in DOD, a key attribute of North Macedonia, and
that is not just its capabilities, but it is the will it has to
contribute to some of our most important and challenging
missions and they have for decades.
So we appreciate your time today, and I look forward to
your questions.
[Ms. Wheelbarger's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathryn Wheelbarger
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to express the support of the
Department of Defense for North Macedonia's membership in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
In many ways, this moment celebrates the culmination of the strong
bilateral defense relationship the United States has fostered with the
Government of North Macedonia since 1991. NATO membership for North
Macedonia will advance a longstanding, shared commitment to the fight
against global terrorism and the promotion of international stability
in southeastern Europe.
Following the NATO accession of Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and
most recently, Montenegro, the accession of North Macedonia presents a
historic opportunity to further extend a stabilizing influence in this
strategic region. Our Allies and partners in the Western Balkans-a
region where U.S. and NATO forces have intervened twice in the past 25
years-look to the United States as they strive to deter Russia and
institutionalize the pillars of Western democratic values. NATO
enlargement benefits not only our collective defense, but also serves
to advance core U.S. interests under our National Defense Strategy.
North Macedonia emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia to become a
highly dedicated security partner to NATO, joining NATO's Partnership
for Peace (PfP) in 1995. Since that time, North Macedonia has
consistently been an important force contributor, fighting alongside
the United States and NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2002, North
Macedonia has deployed with us in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF) and, in Afghanistan, to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and the Resolute
Support Mission (RSM) and increased its contributions to RSM in the
last two years. North Macedonia also maintains staff officers deployed
to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and to the EU
mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Operation Althea). North Macedonia also
notably celebrated its 25th anniversary working closely with the
Vermont National Guard under the State Partnership Program (SPP) and in
2010, was the first SPP partner to deploy in an overseas combat tour to
Afghanistan with a National Guard unit. Most recently, the Government
of North Macedonia committed to deploy another contingent of forces
with the Vermont National Guard in 2020.
North Macedonia participates in over a dozen NATO and U.S.
exercises each year, including a recent commitment to send a mechanized
company and a Ranger platoon to U.S. Army Europe's SABER JUNCTION
military training exercise in September. Additionally, North Macedonia
provides logistical support to the NATO mission in Kosovo (KFOR) and
offers the use of its largest training area, Krivolak, to U.S. and NATO
forces, which provides a unique maneuver training area in Europe. This
is a cost-saving contribution to KFOR operations. As a future member of
NATO, North Macedonia will bring this asset to the Alliance, addressing
the need for additional quality training areas to increase NATO
readiness levels. Krivolak is also the center of the multinational
military training exercise Decisive Strike, hosted by North Macedonia
this month, which is the largest military exercise in the country since
the break-up of Yugoslavia. More than 2,700 forces, including about
1,300 from the United States, are taking part in the exercise.
North Macedonia cooperates with U.S. counterterrorism (CT) efforts
as part of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, participating as a
member of the Foreign Terrorist Fighter Working Group. North Macedonia
was one of the first countries to publicly announce intentions to
repatriate foreign fighters from Syria. Seven nationals of North
Macedonia, captured and held by the Syrian Democratic Force, were
convicted of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to between six
and nine years in prison.
North Macedonia adopted in March 2018 the 2018-2022 National
Counterterrorism Strategy and a standalone 2018-2022 National Strategy
for Countering Violent Extremism. Both were accompanied by National
Action Plans. The Department of Defense is using the Section 333
authority to build the capacity of national-level security forces of
North Macedonia, specifically the Special Police Units, in support of
counterterrorism operations.
North Macedonia's resolute political commitment to defense reform
over several years demonstrates a dedicated partner that upholds core
NATO values, and that satisfies practical requirements. NATO's
mechanisms for aspiring members, honed over decades of partnerships and
numerous rounds of enlargement, serve to confirm North Macedonia's
ability to satisfy such practical requirements as protecting classified
planning documents, conducting secure operational communications,
participating with personnel in NATO's integrated command structure,
and applying NATO training and doctrinal requirements and other
essential foundations of interoperability. Complementing these NATO
mechanisms, the U.S. on a bilateral basis is also working with North
Macedonia on a bilateral memorandum of understanding (MOU) for defense
cooperation. Within the general framework of the aims of NATO and the
PfP, the MOU is intended to guide North Macedonia towards its reform
goals.
Going forward now, the election of new pro-NATO President Stevo
Pendarovski this past May, backed by a pro-NATO Prime Minister and
Defense Minister, are likely to further accelerate necessary reforms to
meet the wider range of NATO standards and guidelines for the overall
capability and posture of the nation's defense forces. The Government
of North Macedonia is implementing changes to right-size its military
and is divesting itself of Soviet legacy military equipment. North
Macedonia also completed its Strategic Defense Review (SDR) in 2018
with U.S. and NATO guidance. North Macedonia has pledged to meet NATO's
defense spending commitment of 2 percent of GDP by 2024 and is already
spending 18 percent of its defense budget on modernization with plans
to reach NATO's goal of 20 percent next year.
North Macedonia's defense spending will be in line with NATO
standards: 50 percent on personnel; 30 percent for operations,
maintenance, and training; and 20 percent for equipment and
modernization. Under the SDR, the Government of North Macedonia has
already begun transforming its armed forces based on its expected NATO
capability goals. Complementing NATO guidance and support, North
Macedonia has been a model steward of U.S. security assistance funding
and plans continued increases in national expenditures for the
acquisition of Western-made equipment, such as the purchase of U.S.-
made infantry fighting vehicles. These new vehicles will replace
approximately 25 percent of North Macedonian ground capability with new
models, resulting in improved readiness and interoperability.
Additional spending will focus on individual soldier equipment,
Western-made transport helicopters, and renovation of defense
information technology systems. North Macedonia also has more than 900
graduates from U.S. schools and training funded through International
Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing
(FMP), and other Department of Defense sources, including a several
Senior Service College graduates and Intermediate Level Education
graduates. Many of these graduates are in critical positions at the
highest levels of North Macedonia's defense establishment.
North Macedonia maintains positive relations with its neighbors.
North Macedonia is a founding member of the U.S.-Adriatic Charter
(along with Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina),
which promotes regional cooperation and furthers NATO integration.
Montenegro has assisted North Macedonia in providing insightful
guidance in preparation for accession as well as NATO's expectations
after membership is realized. Since the Prespa Agreement, relations
with Greece have improved, including in the defense sphere. Although
North Macedonia currently lacks a fixed-wing capability, Greece has
been particularly helpful in this regard and has provided air patrols
over North Macedonia's airspace.
The United States and our NATO Allies cannot be ambivalent toward
the Western Balkans. Inaction invites Russian malfeasance, as evidenced
by an attempted coup in Montenegro in October 2016, an aggressive
disinformation campaign to derail North Macedonia's referendum in
September 2018, and increased political paralysis in Bosnia and
Herzegovina since the election of pro-Russian, ethnic Serbian
nationalist Milorad Dodik to the country's tri-presidency in October
2018. Russia's underhanded actions across the region have provoked
widespread skepticism of the Russian Government and have prompted
several countries to engage even more closely with NATO, especially in
the cyber domain. North Macedonia has worked closely with the United
States to counter Russia in cyberspace, including initiating its first
FMS case for cyber security upgrades. Additionally, in 2018, U.S. Cyber
Command operated alongside cyber defenders from North Macedonia to
improve network defense and information sharing on malicious cyber
activities that threaten both of our democracies. These activities are
consistent with the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy, which directs
the Department to expand operational cooperation with our allies and
partners.
North Macedonia is ready for NATO membership. North Macedonia's
accession is critical to the stability and security of the Western
Balkans, and to the realization of a Europe that is whole, free, and at
peace. North Macedonia's accession will help rebuff Russian malign
influence in the region and demonstrate to other countries that NATO's
door remains open to those who share our values, are willing to make
necessary reforms, and are committed to the responsibilities of
membership.
It is my great honor to appear before this committee. Thank you,
and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
remarks, both of you.
We are now going to do a round of questions, and I am going
to start briefly.
Mr. Reeker, you mentioned that you talked with the North
Macedonians recently about the commitment to reach their 2
percent-20 percent. As we know, they have already the 20
percent, which is a good sign. And you also noted that they are
in the upper echelon for people who are reaching for that goal.
What is your optimism for them getting to the point that we
want to see that they have agreed to get to and that we all
want to see?
Ambassador Reeker. Thanks, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I think I am extremely optimistic is the
simple and short answer based on my experience with
particularly this government under Prime Minister Zoran Zaev,
the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister. Their dedication to
meeting the criteria to join NATO, as we discussed, has been a
long-term goal not just of the Government but really of the
people of North Macedonia across all different lines, across
political divides. This has been their goal. And they have a
very credible and well thought through plan fiscally to meet
that 2 percent criteria.
They are already, because of the positive benefits of the
Prespa Agreement, seeing economic benefits in terms of greater
investment. The trade opportunities that are presented by
having a very positive relationship with Greece now in terms of
infrastructure and mobility will pay off results, which means
they will be in a better position to direct spending on the
military as required. And we have really seen that. And I think
a number of you know personally the leadership of both the
Defense Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister
and how dedicated they are to this.
So we are quite confident. And of course, our team on the
ground under our Ambassador and those of us in Washington will
be working with them hand in hand to hold them to those
commitments but also to help them with the kind of mentoring
and advice that we have provided really over the country's
independence.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your
raising the issue with them. I am not going to ask you about
your view of the other 22 of our friends and allies who have
not met that commitment. And I would hope and would urge and as
chairman of this committee, I want to urge that all of us
continue to underscore for these 22 allies how important that
commitment is. All of us over the years have talked to them
about it, but we always felt that we were being put off and
patted on the head and told how well they were going toward it.
And over the last 29 months, we have seen real movement in that
regard, and I think it is important that we all keep the
pressure on them for them to understand this is a for-real
commitment and it is important to every member to meet that
commitment, just as it is to meet all commitments.
So in any event, thank you for doing that.
And with that, I will turn it over to the ranking member,
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prespa is the reason that we are able to discuss North
Macedonia's NATO accession, the agreement between Greece and
North Macedonia.
What progress has North Macedonia made towards its
commitment under the Prespa Agreement? What is the United
States doing either diplomatically or through our security
assistance programs to support those aspects of Prespa that aim
to improve ties between Greece and North Macedonia?
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you, Senator Menendez, because I
think that is an important thing to highlight.
The Prespa Agreement, as you know, outlines a timeline for
full implementation of the agreement and the mechanisms for
cooperation, including technical, as well as political phase-in
on the name, ?North Macedonia,? and of course, some of that is
also tied to North Macedonia's opening of EU accession
chapters.
I have long believed--and I think we have had these
conversations--that North Macedonia and Greece can be, should
be, and are naturally poised to be the best of friends. And as
allies and potentially soon EU members, they are really working
in that direction. The agreement, like any agreement, does take
time to implement, but I think we have seen strong support.
There is a bilateral joint commission on historic and education
matters that has been established that is already meeting. A
group of experts has been established to advise on commercial
and trademark use. And most importantly, they are taking it
seriously at both an official and a private business level.
And so the United States has remained ready, as we were
over the past 25 years, but particularly during the period when
the two governments showed the courage and the true leadership
to come together and resolve this issue that they have our
support and our backing as they move forward to implement this.
My colleague may be able to describe more some of the
security assistance.
Ms. Wheelbarger. Just briefly, I think our continued focus
on NATO interoperability, modernizing of their forces, and
joint exercises is a key focus of not only their ability to
partner with all of NATO but Greece in specific.
Senator Menendez. Secretary Reeker, while North Macedonia
has made progress in addressing the rule of law issues under
Prime Minister Zaev, the country has made a lot of progress on
the rule of law in the 2000s before it slid back in 2008 to
2015. How would you assess the durability of North Macedonia's
ongoing rule of law reforms? What are the most substantial
outstanding areas of democratic reform to be undertaken in
North Macedonia?
The mandate for the special prosecutor dealing with the
2015 scandals expires next year. Should the U.S. advocate for
the appointment of another special prosecutor to deal with
corruption cases?
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you, Senator.
I have, of course, seen the progress that North Macedonia
made in its early years emerging from the break-up of
Yugoslavia as the only one of the Yugoslav republics not to
experience war. And of course, the support from the United
States and the international community was important in that,
including U.S. troops that participated in the UNPREDEP
deployment back in the 1990s. Their support for our goals
during the Kosovo war was unprecedented in terms of refugee
flows and working----
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that, but since I have
limited time, I am trying to get to the rule of law reforms.
Ambassador Reeker. And so, as you saw, they made tremendous
reform, and then after the Bucharest decision, the Government
in power at the time slowly began backtracking on these things.
And I know Senator Shaheen visited us and saw, witnessed what
we had there.
The Macedonian people spoke, and they did not cave in to
the previous regime's methods and efforts to prevent a
resolution of the name issue. And I think they have shown now a
dedication to this.
They do have to finish the process on the special
prosecutor. That is an important aspect. The prime minister
realizes that and has spoken to us. Our embassy is regularly
engaged on that. I feel comfortable and confident that they are
dedicated to doing this----
Senator Menendez. Should we seek reappointment of a special
prosecutor?
Ambassador Reeker. I think that is something we have to
continue talking about. I think it plays an important role and
we do want to see that organization, that institution, which
has been crucial to the forward movement, and we will continue
to talk to the Government about that.
Senator Menendez. Very quickly, Ms. Wheelbarger, I am going
to submit a series of questions for the record with respect to
North Macedonia's military force structure, budget, planning,
and logistics capabilities. Do I have your commitment to answer
those questions in a timely manner?
Ms. Wheelbarger. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Reeker, you are well aware of the
significant geopolitical competition occurring within Central,
South Central, and Eastern Europe. You mentioned in your
testimony Russia engaged in a hot war not honoring the
territorial integrity of Ukraine, China growing investment.
One thing I have really become acutely aware of is how
important the required reforms are for these nations to attract
investment, to grow their economy, create the opportunity for
their people. And a huge incentive for the body politic is the
accession, the joining of NATO and the EU. Can you just kind of
speak to that with your broad experience in the region?
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you for that because I think that
is so critical to the transformation that we have seen in the
western Balkans so that these countries--this broad area goes
from being a consumer of security to a producer and supporter
of security. And it has been, as our foreign policy has
reflected, the reforms required on both these tracks--there is
a parallel track, the NATO membership, as well as their efforts
to joint the EU, which we have supported as a matter of
policy--that has produced that.
And I think we saw it in Slovakia, a country that is
celebrating 30 years since the Velvet Revolution that had its
own challenges after the Velvet Divorce in terms of democracy,
but used the path to NATO and to the EU positively with the
full support of their people, their population, to make those
necessary reforms and now are a strong ally and an economy that
is booming at a level that would have been thought
unprecedented just 30 years ago, let alone 75 years ago when we
liberated Europe and thought about the kinds of institutions we
needed to build to build a Europe whole and free. And so I
think that has been a key motivating factor.
I know I saw in North Macedonia these were the criteria
they laid out. This was how they developed policy. This was
where we directed our assistance dollars, whether it was in the
financial sector or in civil society, and certainly on the
military side. And we are seeing the fruits of those efforts,
which contributes then to the security of the whole
transatlantic area and to the American people.
Senator Johnson. So if the ability to join NATO and the EU
would be cut off, that would be a really bad thing for the
region. Correct?
Ambassador Reeker. I think it has been a very positive
force for the region and the backbone of our policy certainly
in the Western Balkans.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Wheelbarger, a group of more than 50
Members of Congress went to the Munich Security Conference
sending a very strong signal of how important we view those
friendships, those alliances. In a meeting with Secretary-
General Stoltenberg, one of the members questioning, really
from the standpoint of a devil's advocate, the enlargement of
NATO, about the only negative aspect there is, I mean, should
we really be called upon to defend such a small country. I
thought the Secretary-General's answer was--and I do not want
to put words in his mouth, but basically was very simple saying
we want to enlarge NATO because a larger defensive organization
like NATO is just a good thing.
Can you speak to that from the standpoint of the defensive
nature of the alliance?
Ms. Wheelbarger. Sure, of course.
From the Department of Defense's perspective, the continued
enlargement of NATO with countries that meet the requirements
is a net gain for our collective security and the security of
the transatlantic alliance. A country like North Macedonia,
though small, brings significant capabilities to the defense
posture in the region and also provides significant stabilizing
force to what has historically been a very destabilizing
region. So we actually do see the continued progress on NATO
enhancement and enlargement as a net positive for our
collective security.
Senator Johnson. I have always felt, as important as the 2
percent commitment is, how that money is spent is maybe even
more important. Can you talk about the strategic type of
resourcing and development of individual militaries of these
different nations in terms of its interoperability and
cooperation within the NATO alliance?
Ms. Wheelbarger. Absolutely, and that is a key aspect of
not only members that are already in NATO but those that are
aspiring to be in NATO is that they seek our input and our
cooperation on how to become more interoperable and how to
reform and advance their militaries in a way that is Western-
aligned, which has a significant, obviously, counter-Russian
influence just from the beginning.
As we have seen with North Macedonia and their strategic
defense review, we worked closely hand in glove with them as
they developed that, right-sized their military to ensure that
they have the proper mixture of senior officers to junior
officers and also a desire to truly create an NCO corps which
is seen throughout the world as key to military success. So
again, having the aspiration to join NATO has already allowed
North Macedonia to make these significant steps forward in a
way that protects themselves and protects the transatlantic
alliance.
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you. Thank you for your
service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson. That was an
interesting point you raised that we have all talked about and
that is the wisdom of the expansion of NATO. And I think if the
Georgians were here, we have two regions still occupied by the
Russians from recent activity, and the Ukrainians were here
that have one full and one other partial occupied by the
Russians, I think they could make a very powerful argument as
to why expansion is an appropriate idea. But a good thought.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by echoing your comments and those of
Senator Menendez about in recognizing the political courage and
leadership that it took for both Greece and the Republic of
North Macedonia to sign the Prespa Agreement. I think that is
political courage that we do not often see, and so I think we
should all remember that it is important to recognize that.
You both talked about the Russian attempt to disrupt the
agreement between Greece and North Macedonia. And we have seen
their influence perhaps even more notable in other parts of the
Western Balkans, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.
So can you speak to, Mr. Reeker, first how bringing North
Macedonia and Montenegro perhaps into NATO helps to
counterbalance that influence in the region?
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you, Senator. It is an important
question because these are countries that have demonstrated
clearly that their orientation is to the West. We share broadly
a set of values in terms of democracy, in terms of respect for
freedom for the rights of the citizen and free markets and
collective security. And so by having these countries work
through the path of reform necessary to meet the criteria to
join NATO, they demonstrate, with the full support of their
populations, obviously, that that is their direction. And they
have not succumbed to some often powerful efforts by the
Russians? malign activities and intents to disrupt, to sow
discord, in the case of North Macedonia, to attempt to divide
with false information, misleading stories, alarmist and
fearful ideas of what would happen in terms of the Prespa
Agreement.
And the people have shown wisdom by coming together not
allowing the ethnic card to be played, but instead saying we
have a goal that we have set out now over two or three
generations since our independence and since setting our sights
on integration into the Euro-Atlantic family. And I think by
bringing them in as the 30th member of NATO, they will see the
real accomplishment of that and they will work with us in the
region as well to support our values and counter this Russian
effort.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Wheelbarger, in your testimony you said that North
Macedonia has worked closely with the United States to counter
Russia in cyberspace. Can you elaborate on that a little bit
and why that is important?
Ms. Wheelbarger. Sure, absolutely.
And I will just echo the thoughts of my colleague in terms
of North Macedonia's ability to counter the Russian influence.
We have recently met with their minister of defense, and it
was quite elucidating, the experience they had at being able to
counter the message before the messages were delivered. They
were very adept at being able to estimate what kind of messages
they thought Russia would deliver to try to upset the vote and
prepare their population for their messages and counter them
before they were even delivered.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk about--because maybe there
are some lessons there that we should take as we look at our
upcoming elections--how did they prepare their populations?
What kinds of things did they do?
Ms. Wheelbarger. My understanding, based on our study and
conversation with the minister, is they first established what
they thought would be the messages, what were the key themes
that Russia was likely to deploy. One of those, of course, is
anti-NATO rhetoric. Others, of course, would be sowing ethnic
strife within the country. So my understanding is their senior
leadership made it their responsibility to have the
conversation with their people and to explain you should expect
these kind of messages from the Russians and sort of do not
fall for it. And they had a pretty significant impact, we
assess, on the outcome of that vote. So I have suggested that
we could most significantly learn from their experiences.
Another key reason that our alliance with these countries
are so value, because they are on the front lines of a lot of
this malign influence. And we can learn and adapt from them.
And that is similar in the cyberspace arena. Especially during
the last election, we had teams in the region watching and
learning from what they were seeing in attempting to counter it
in the cyber realm. And that was important for our own election
because what we see there is going to come next year.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Can you both speak briefly just of how important it
will be for the United States Congress to move this
accession agreement as rapidly as possible so that the rest of
our NATO allies see that, and how do you think they will
respond to that?
Ambassador Reeker. Senator, I think our allies, of course,
always take cues from the United States. We have led the
alliance now for 70 years. There is unanimity within the
alliance that North Macedonia should become the 30th member. I
think our movement quickly on this would demonstrate not only
that we support something that we have stood behind for a long
time, but how important NATO is and illustrate to the other
allies but to the rest of the world, including our adversaries,
that NATO is going strong, expanding as we have discussed, and
increasing the security for all of its members as a defensive
alliance.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Wheelbarger. And I will just quickly add even holding
this hearing now is extremely important because we are coming
upon our defense ministerial at the end of June. So the
prioritization of this committee to hold this hearing now is
very important because we can highlight to our allies, when we
head to Brussels in June, that we are taking this significant
step.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you both very much.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can move out of this committee, as
quickly as possible, the accession agreement.
The Chairman. The chair is committed to that proposition. I
have already discussed it with leadership. They are aware of
our sense of urgency on this matter. I think it is in
everyone's best interest to get this done. So I commit to you
that we will continue down that road.
Senator Cardin, welcome.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, and let me thank our witnesses.
I certainly concur in the comments that have been made
about the importance of NATO and the importance of NATO
accession and the fact that North Macedonia would have been in
NATO by now but for the issues concerning the politics of its
name. I recognize that.
But I also recognize that we have NATO partners today that
made certain commitments about values that, if we were voting
today, we may have questions as to voting for their accession.
And Macedonia has had a history of challenges in regards to its
commitment to basic rights and fighting corruption and
democratic institutions. They certainly are on the right path
at this particular moment. I would acknowledge that. But we
would like to use the accession process to have a sounder
foundation for confidence that this country will, in fact, live
up to the commitments of the NATO alliance as it relates to
values.
So I would just like you to respond as to how we should use
this time, as we are considering accession, to give us the best
chances that North Macedonia will remain true to these
principles and resist the internal politics that we have seen
occur in other countries backsliding on democratic commitments.
What advice do you have for us?
Ambassador Reeker. If I may, Senator. Thank you for the
question because I think North Macedonia has been a really good
example of this.
We saw a government come to power in 2006. We thought we
could work very closely with that government. We were, of
course, open to working with whatever democratic government
there was.
After 2008 and the Bucharest Summit, when I then arrived as
Ambassador, we saw an erosion, the erosion you are all aware of
and talking about. And we raised this repeatedly that we
understood the frustrations. They had made all these steps
towards meeting the criteria at Bucharest but were faced with
this political challenge. And what we tried to do was work with
them to find a way forward and resolve the name issue. Instead,
what we saw was lack of real commitment to doing that and a
consolidation of power and the backsliding on a number of areas
and real concerns about corruption, sowing divisions within the
society.
But the people of North Macedonia, the Macedonians, the
Albanians, all the other ethnic groups within the country,
said, you know, we are not going to fall for this. And our
orientation is West and we are tired of corrupt leadership and
we want to see this issue resolved and we want to move forward
to NATO and EU. And I think that is the best statement.
And we can continue to encourage that. They have robust
politics in North Macedonia, and that is a good thing. It is a
small country. People all know each other. But the United
States can play a strong role there. And by meeting these
criteria, they will have not only realized what they have
dreamed about for some time with the full ratification and
becoming the 30th member, I think that will be a very solid
lesson not only in that country but for other countries in the
region where we are still working to overcome some of the
challenges. And Macedonia is a tough neighborhood, the great
geographic area. North Macedonia has demonstrated how to
survive and thrive in a tough neighborhood, and we can be a
part of that.
Senator Cardin. So with Montenegro, part of NATO and North
Macedonia on the way to becoming part of NATO, how does that
change the dynamic, if at all, in regards to Serbia and Kosovo?
Is this a positive step or does it tend to put more pressure on
Serbia--perhaps more vulnerability to Russia--as a result of
the NATO expansion?
Ambassador Reeker. Senator, I think it is a very positive
step. And the Prespa Agreement was the greatest accomplishment
in the region in terms of stability and peace since the Dayton
Accords. And, again, it was due to the courage and true
leadership and convictions of both sides, in Greece and in
North Macedonia, who said we need to do this. It is difficult.
It is painful. But we can do this, and with the help and
support of the international community, including the United
Nations mediator.
And I think that sent an important signal to the rest of
the region. It gave impetus to the Kosovo-Serbia talks, which
need more impetus. I think seeing North Macedonia actually
benefit from the results that the West, that the alliance, and
now with the European Union considering the next steps in North
Macedonia's accession as a member of the EU also reinforced
that. And so this is a crucial important step.
Going back to Bismarck 2 centuries ago, we are solving what
was called the Macedonia problem. North Macedonia is the
answer, and they are providing stability in the region,
providing good neighborliness to Greece and a model for Serbia,
Kosovo, and also for Bosnia to resolve all of these issues and
demonstrate the Western orientation despite efforts by Russia
to disrupt and divide.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Two comments and I will try to squeeze in two questions.
The first is to align myself with, I think, the direction
of the comments of the chairman. A few of us were at dinner
some years ago with one of the key national leaders inside the
NATO alliance, and that leader was making the case that had
Georgia and Ukraine been inside NATO, that we would be at war
currently with Russia in two different countries. Others of us
around the table were of the opinion that had Ukraine and
Georgia been inside the alliance, that we would have sovereign
and independent countries without Russian invasion or
interference. So that is why many of us are very glad that this
agreement is before us and we can bring yet another country
into the alliance.
This took not just courage but incredible leadership. There
were great obstacles on both sides of this agreement prior to
it getting done. And I am glad that we are recognizing both the
leadership and courage inside of its accomplishment by moving
this very quickly.
Ms. Wheelbarger, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about
how the work that Macedonia has done to counter Russian
interference pairs with our debate about the expectations we
have of NATO members to be in good standing. The fact of the
matter is the tools that Russia is using to try to do damage to
the alliance often are met with capabilities that are outside
of the formal defense structure. And so when Macedonia is
spending money through the foreign ministry on countering
propaganda and trying to set up capabilities to distill real
information from false information, that does not get counted
towards their 2 percent quota.
I have made this case before in this committee, but I think
we generally are gifting the Russians when we only think of
your participation in NATO through the prism of how many planes
and how many tanks and how many soldiers you are employing.
Is the work that Macedonia has done here successfully so
far not an advertisement for why we might want to have a little
bit broader understanding of what countries need to do in order
to be members of NATO in good standing?
Ms. Wheelbarger. Yes. Most certainly whole-of-government
approaches to countering whether it be Russia or any threat we
might face as an alliance is key to the success of the alliance
and to our collective security.
I do think NATO does have a very thoughtful process in
terms of what capabilities and what spending should count
towards the 2 percent and the 20 percent, which was a very
conscious, concerted effort on the part of NATO to develop the
kind of--to have the money attached to the requirements for the
actual defense of the collective security.
That being said, of course everything the United States
does, for example, in the information realm, whether it be
through the State Department's Global Engagement Center or
other activities of our interagency, is important to our own
security. But in a certain sense, we do have to sort of draw a
line somewhere in the sense of what will count for hard numbers
and what will not.
Senator Murphy. I agree. I agree. But we tend to over-
obsess in our discussions about NATO with respect to this 2
percent number. I would also argue that the country is making a
concerted effort to break itself from energy dependence on
Russia, which in no way counts towards the 2 percent standard.
Their decision and investment in doing so probably contributes
much greater to their security than the collective security of
the alliance than the decision to stand up another set of
capabilities inside a relatively small military. So let me just
leave that where it is.
Ambassador Reeker, I wanted, while you are here, to get the
opportunity to talk to you about another important subject
connected to our transatlantic alliance, and that is the very
confusing position of this administration on the ongoing Brexit
negotiations. The President, no doubt, has been a cheerleader
for Britain's departure from the European Union. I think that
is a grave mistake for the future of transatlantic security.
While I was in Britain talking to them about this subject a
few month ago, the President's son wrote an op-ed for a major
British newspaper that went so far as to say that the pending
agreement before the parliament, which would have protected the
Good Friday Agreement, was an abandonment of the referendum.
That was clearly believed to have been administration policy
given that no one there thinks the President's son puts op-eds
in major papers without authorization from the administration.
But then just days after that, the Secretary of State was
before our committee claiming that it was still the U.S.
position to try to make sure that the peace process in Northern
Ireland was protected.
The President was very enthusiastic about a trade agreement
while he was there as a reward for Britain's departure from the
European Union.
Have we laid down any conditions for that trade agreement,
for instance, that Brexit be done in a way that does not harm
the Good Friday Agreement, the Belfast Agreement? Are we making
it clear that we have some interests that we want to be
protected throughout the Brexit process and might be a
condition for them entering into negotiations with us on a
trade agreement?
Ambassador Reeker. Thanks, Senator. I obviously stand with
Secretary Pompeo and his recent remarks there. As you know, he
has also been recently in the UK, and I joined him a couple
weeks ago on a visit there prior to the state visit.
As we said, we support a Brexit outcome that maintains
global economic and financial stability and minimizes
disruption to the transatlantic commercial and security ties
and preserves peace and stability in Northern Ireland. We have
made that very clear, and it is something we watch closely.
We do stand ready to negotiate an ambitious free trade
agreement with the United Kingdom as soon as they are ready to
do so, as the President has said, and such a free trade
agreement between the United States and the UK can have
tremendous benefit for both countries. We have also been very
clear that we want to continue our strong partnership with the
European Union as well.
Senator Murphy. Is the preservation of the Good Friday
Agreement a precondition for those negotiations on a free trade
agreement?
Ambassador Reeker. I think what we said is we are prepared
to negotiate an ambitious free trade agreement. We have not
established yet the full criteria there, but I think that
remains. And we have repeatedly said preserving peace and
stability in Northern Ireland is critical. The Good Friday
Accords are vital there. There is a robust democratic system in
the United Kingdom, and they will make sovereign and democratic
choices when it comes to Brexit.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I think that your
observations are quite profound regarding the value issues for
membership in NATO. We do have a tendency to count planes and
soldiers and what have you. Before you can even sit down at the
table like that, they have got to be a country that is bound to
us by the kind of values. And I think that was very profound.
Regarding your comments on Brexit, why do we not leave
those for another day? The Rubik's cube will be explored no
doubt at some point by this committee. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to both of you for your testimony and
service.
As I mentioned to you in the interim prior to the hearing,
I have been bouncing back and forth to a Helsinki Commission
hearing and a Commerce Committee hearing. So I apologize for
being late.
You may have already discussed some of these questions, so
if I am asking a question that has been asked before, I
apologize.
One of the challenges we have seen in NATO--and I am a
strong supporter of NATO and serve on the Senate NATO observer
group, which I think is one of the key architectural frameworks
this world has ever seen. I have even talked about perhaps some
day we could see a NATO-like structure in Asia. It has got a
ways to go, but obviously the power of NATO, the interests that
unite us, the ability to respond to threats that we face with
mutual values is incredibly important.
One of the challenges, though, we have seen in NATO and I
think one of the questions that has rightfully been asked is
issues of defense spending and contributions and those kinds of
things. And perhaps you addressed this already, but would you,
Ms. Wheelbarger, be able to talk a little bit about the defense
spending and what you think would happen?
Ms. Wheelbarger. We did speak about it a little bit
earlier, but maintaining a focus and ensuring that all allies
remain committed to their 2 percent and 20 percent Wales pledge
continues to be a major effort in all of our defense
ministerials, and it will be a topic of conversation again
coming up here at the end of June.
We also like to highlight that it is three C's. It is cash,
commitments, and contributions. So the importance of allies
contributing to missions that are important for the alliance
such as Afghanistan and the RSM mission and OIR continue to be
a focus of our efforts as well.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Secretary Reeker, one of the things that we discussed just
at the Helsinki Commission hearing this morning--we talked a
little bit about the counterterrorism efforts that Russia has
made both within and without the country that have the effect
less of counterterrorism and can be counterproductive actually
to U.S. values, U.S. ally values, and used less as a
counterterrorism tactic but perhaps more as a geopolitical
strategy to push back against U.S. or allied interests.
Could you talk a little bit about this accession and what
it means and what we have seen out of Russia?
Ambassador Reeker. Thanks, Senator. We did touch on that a
bit in noting how North Macedonia has consistently stood up
against the Russian malign activities there. The Prespa
Agreement has faced a lot of efforts at disruption to that by
Russian activities not only in North Macedonia but also in
Greece, particularly in northern Greece. And the people have
spoken with strong efforts by the leadership on both sides of
the Government to counter that. And I think what we are seeing,
as they make their way and will become, with the support of
this committee, the 30th member of NATO, a real decisive
statement about the importance of that.
And that goes for counterterrorism, which President Trump
has highlighted as an important thing for NATO to focus on, and
they have. The efforts not only, of course, in Afghanistan and
training missions in Iraq, efforts by NATO to focus resources
on counterterrorism have been joined by countries like North
Macedonia, soon to be a member, but as a partner signed up to
the global counter ISIS group. They have made real
contributions there.
Senator Gardner. Should NATO members, should European
nations, the United States, others--should we be pushing more
on the OSCE to be a more effective voice in pushing back
against some of the counterproductive activities Russia has
pursued, whether it is at the United Nations or any other
forum?
Ambassador Reeker. The OSCE I think is a terrific forum
that is often--I do not want to say forgotten, but does not
have the profile perhaps that NATO does. But it is another
institution that was created in the post-World War II era.
Particularly during the Cold War, it gave us valuable
opportunities for the types of engagement. OSCE has played a
very important role in the Western Balkans, including in North
Macedonia, over the years. This committee and the full Senate
have confirmed a new U.S. Permanent Representative to the OSCE,
and we very much look forward to Governor Gilmore taking up his
role there where I do think the OSCE has an important role to
play.
Senator Gardner. Should we be doing more to push back and
to express----
Ambassador Reeker. I think it is one of the tools and
avenues that we have, and we will continue to do that robustly.
And we look forward to continuing to work very closely with the
Helsinki Commission on how we do that.
Senator Gardner. Do you think OSCE has done enough at this
point?
Ambassador Reeker. I think one can always do more. OSCE is
a robust organization with a lot of members in it. It is a
platform. And in fact, I am meeting with the OSCE chairman in
office. I met the chairman in office from Slovakia last week,
and I am meeting with the Secretary-General this week. And we
will continue to look at avenues they can do and welcome your
thoughts on that.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
Senator Kaine, your patience is admirable.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It has been a great discussion, and I want to thank the
witnesses for this.
I add my words to those that you each offered and Senator
Shaheen congratulating Greece and Macedonia for the diplomacy.
I noticed May 31 both countries opened up embassies in each
other's capitals, which was a positive sign. I think the timing
of this hearing, as you said, Ms. Wheelbarger, is good because
of the upcoming ministerial level meeting.
A comment about NATO, and then, Ms. Wheelbarger, I want to
talk to you about DOD cooperation, mil-to-mil cooperation.
So NATO, 70th year. I do think it is very important for us
to continue what is clearly a consensus here, DOD, State, the
administration, colleagues on both sides of the aisle
emphasizing the importance of NATO. I was in Paris giving a
speech on the 70th anniversary of NATO in March, and the
questions I was getting were really interesting.
You know, the President makes some statements that make
people wonder about him, and I expected I might get questions
about him. But actually the questions I got were more about the
American public. Is the American public supportive of NATO?
Presidents can be here for 4 or 8 years, and there can be other
Presidents. But what does the American public think about it?
I have a bill that I have introduced that is pending before
this committee that is bipartisan that would clear up a legal
ambiguity. The bill basically says that just as it took Senate
ratification of a treaty to get into NATO, we should not get
out of NATO unless either by a Senate vote or an act of
Congress. That is not particular toward any President, but it
is an expression of will, that Congress believes this is
important. And I would hope that that might be something we
could take up.
I am very open. It is a bipartisan proposal, but
amendments, changes, making it better. But because the
questions that I was getting were about what do the American
people think about the relationship at 70, something like that
I think can be a very strong statement. And I actually think
constitutionally it would be wise.
I think it would be an appropriate policy to say that a
treaty of this magnitude that is accepted with such a
consensus, that was entered into with a Senate two-thirds vote
should not be set aside unilaterally by anyone.
I am also happy to tell my colleagues that in the Armed
Services Committee, the NDAA, the text of which is being filed
today, includes an amendment that says if any President were to
say we should get out of NATO, no funds could be used to remove
American troops from NATO missions for a year, giving Congress
the ability to grapple with that and decide whether that was a
direction the country wanted to go.
But I hope we might be able to take this matter up in some
form and express powerfully that the Senate and Congress
believe we should stay in NATO until we make a decision that we
should get out of NATO.
I want to ask you, Ms. Wheelbarger. You talked a little bit
about IMET and joint exercises. And the commitment of North
Macedonia in troops to Afghanistan and other missions has been
really powerful.
Talk to us a little more about the kinds of ongoing
training that we are doing together with folks coming to our
country for training, the likely exercises in the future. You
mentioned a couple of them that North Macedonia will do
together with U.S. troops. Because I think this is really
important to build relationships, build capacity, send a
message that is ultimately a message of deterrence.
Ms. Wheelbarger. Absolutely, happy to do so.
I think our mil-to-mil relationship with North Macedonia is
an exemplar for other countries. Their willingness to take our
advice and be true strategic partners when it comes to
particularly their strategic defense reforms, which from the
Department of Defense view, when you are talking about what
kind of training has the longest-term effects for a country,
not only the training that they can do in the United States
through the IMET program, which I will get you specific numbers
of who is here in the country right now from North Macedonia,
but in terms of defense institution building. And I know this
body, the Senate, has been a big advocate for that for many
years.
The importance of that I do not think can be overstated
simply because ensuring the proper civ-mil relationships,
ensuring the anti-corruption efforts throughout defense
industries and throughout defense institutions, having the
right mixture between officers and enlisted, the right mixture
between senior officers and junior officers, this can be a
foundational core for any society.
We heard earlier the concerns about backsliding for a
country like North Macedonia that had some trouble some years
in terms of their democratic values. We do believe that mil-to-
mil relationships and MOD-to-DOD relationships can provide a
background of stability in some ways for those values. Again,
if a country can get their defense institutions right,
particularly on values of anti-corruption, values of
meritocracy, that has an enduring foundation throughout the
rest of the institutions of that society.
Senator Kaine. I would also add a value that militaries
could often perform in a wonderful way are inclusion in any
society where there is ethnic strife. The Russians were trying
to amplify that to oppose the agreement with Greece. They often
go at these ethnic tensions and try to drive them. And if you
have a military where in the leadership and in the ranks,
everybody is represented, everybody is treated equally, that
often is a really powerful example. And I know that is one of
the things, when we do training, we really work with other
nations to try to model. So I would encourage you to continue
in that good work.
Mr. Chair, thank you.
The Chairman. Good remarks. Thank you very much, Senator
Kaine.
Thank you so much. If you will be patient with us for just
a few more minutes. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two final
questions.
Mr. Secretary, the European Commission has recommended that
EU start accession talks with North Macedonia, but my
understanding is that several EU members are reluctant to start
those talks. Last week, Prime Minister Zaev warned that he may
call early elections if the EU does not give a date for
starting talks this summer.
How would you assess the status of North Macedonia's EU
accession and what impact would delaying those talks have
domestically in North Macedonia?
Ambassador Reeker. Thank you, Senator, for the very timely
question. It is a subject we have been discussing in my
meetings with European counterparts. In fact, we were in Berlin
just last week underscoring the U.S. support for North
Macedonia's European perspective and the start of talks. We all
welcomed the European Commission's report for North Macedonia,
as well as for Albania. Our encouragement has been to look at
each country on their merits, and I think there is widespread
support for North Macedonia to move forward with its EU
membership, particularly with the Prespa Agreement having
resolved the name issue.
Some countries, some member states do have their own
political calendars. That is something that colleagues have
highlighted for us. Whether June becomes the exact date for
starting the accession talks or announcing a date to start is
not yet certain. I think there is still time for that to be--if
it is June, if it is July.
Our advice certainly to Prime Minister Zaev and others is
to look at how far you have come in this path that you have
taken. They have done all the right things. That has been
acknowledged by the commission, and I think North Macedonia
beginning to open these chapters necessary to become a full
member of the European Union is a foregone conclusion. The
exact timing is something for the Europeans to work out.
Senator Menendez. Outside of the timing, if the timing
delays to a point, what is the purpose of the prime minister
suggesting that he is going to call some snap elections?
Ambassador Reeker. Well, politics in North Macedonia is
complicated, as it is in many countries. I think he continues
to demonstrate that he has a strong support, strong mandate,
and that is something he wants to highlight. But this is a
reason that we have highlighted to our European colleagues both
in Brussels institutionally but with individual member states
our belief and the efforts we have made to help move this
forward and why it would be in everybody's interest to let them
begin that process as soon as possible.
Senator Menendez. One last question. China has invested
hundreds of millions of euros in North Macedonia's
infrastructure as part of its 17 plus 1 initiative in Eastern
Europe. And Prime Minister Zaev has stated that he wants to
expand North Macedonia's cooperation with China.
Now, I remain deeply concerned about the threat of China's
investments, particularly in the telecommunications sector,
pose to the security of the United States and our allies. We
have seen time and time again that Chinese investment is
manipulative at best and coercive in some of its worst forms.
Have you had discussions with North Macedonia regarding
future China investments, how they impact NATO's security? And
what measures are you taking to ensure that North Macedonia's
engagement with China does not negatively impact NATO?
Ambassador Reeker. We have had those conversations, as we
have with so many countries, highlighting our concerns about
Chinese geopolitical and strategic goals, warning of what we
have seen in other parts of the world. I think North Macedonia
and its leadership have wide open eyes about that. They do want
to pursue opportunities in terms of trade and markets, but they
have to do that knowing about the risks, particularly when it
comes to things like telecommunications infrastructure. So as
we have with others, we have highlighted that.
They are going to make their own decisions, but I think
they understand and they are keenly attuned to the concerns
about NATO membership when it comes to telecom infrastructure,
as the 5G issue has illustrated. And we will continue to have
those conversations. In fact, I find them quite welcoming of
the conversations and the information that we can provide to
them to highlight some of the risks and concerns.
Senator Menendez. This is an example of why we not only
need to confront China, but we need to compete with China so
that countries have other opportunities at the end of the day
to choose other than Chinese investment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Well said, Senator Menendez.
Well, thank you to both of you for providing us with the
benefit of your testimony, your information, your expertise in
this area.
For the information of members, the record will remain open
until close of business on Friday. There has already been an
indication that there are going to be questions for the record.
So if the two of you would, as promptly as possible, respond to
those inquiries, it would be very, very helpful to move this
thing forward.
So with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Philip T. Reeker by Senator Robert Menendez
Question 1. As part of its NATO and EU accession processes North
Macedonia has made a number of reforms:
What specific reforms has North Macedonia made thus far to tackle
corruption; improve the judiciary; strengthen the electoral
system's credibility; and clean up the bureaucracy and
especially the intelligence services? What are their reform
plans for those areas going forward? What is the current and
future role of the U.S. in supporting those reforms?
Answer. Over the past year, the Government of North Macedonia made
significant progress in implementing reforms needed for the country to
align with NATO and EU standards. We agree with the European
Commission's May 29 accession report which confirms North Macedonia has
made significant reform progress in a range of areas including
strengthening rule of law and judicial independence, media freedom,
transparency, intelligence reform, and government accountability. The
Parliament passed significant judicial reform legislation this spring
with opposition support, including amendments to laws governing the
courts, Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, administrative disputes,
and access to information. On intelligence reform, the implementation
of an independent Operational Technical Agency continues to move
forward, and in late May, Parliament adopted a law to replace the
Department for Counterintelligence and Security (UBK) with a new body
independent of the Ministry of Interior and with increased
parliamentary oversight.
Another key step was the enactment of a new Law on Prevention of
Corruption and Conflict of Interest in January 2019 that provided for
the re-constitution of the State Commission for Prevention of
Corruption and Conflict of Interest, giving it greater independence and
strengthened competencies. It can now examine public officials' bank
records, political party and election campaign finances, and all
political appointments, as well as request prosecutions. Reflecting
these efforts, North Macedonia moved up 14 places between 2017 and 2018
in Transparency International's Public Perception of Corruption Index,
now ranking 93rd out of 180 countries surveyed.
At the Government's request, we continue to support these important
reform efforts.
Question 2. During the hearing on Montenegro's NATO accession in
2016, several members of this Committee noted that Montenegro still had
work to do on its democratic and rule of law reforms--much like North
Macedonia does now. How would you assess Montenegro's progress on those
reforms since it joined NATO?
Answer. Montenegro is a strong NATO Ally, and we commend its
commitment to regional and NATO collective security. Montenegro
provides stability in an unsettled region and offers a positive example
to NATO and EU aspirants.
Since 2016, it has made notable strides in advancing democratic
principles and respect for the rule of law. As part of a package of
rule of law reforms enacted in the lead-up to its NATO invitation, the
Government of Montenegro (GoM) established a new independent Office of
the Special State Prosecutor that handles major cases involving
organized crime and corruption, and appointed an independent Chief
Special Prosecutor. A Special Police unit focused on corruption and
organized crime supports the Special Prosecutor. The GoM also created
the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption as an administrative body
to oversee the implementation of anti-corruption laws and regulations.
These new institutions are supported by a team of U.S. Embassy rule of
law and police advisors with combined decades of experience. With the
support and mentoring from Embassy Podgorica, these Montenegrin
authorities have conducted hundreds of disruption raids against
suspected organized criminals.
To further bolster democratic and rule of law reforms, Embassy
Podgorica also supports civil society and independent media, which are
important watchdogs on the Government; the work of the independent
human rights ombudsman in Montenegro; and ongoing efforts to make
Montenegro's law enforcement institutions more professional and
competent.
As the State Department documented in the annual 2018 Human Rights
Report, pervasive corruption--marked by nepotism, political favoritism,
weak controls, and conflicts of interest in all branches of the
Government--contributes to serious human rights problems, as does
impunity. Attacks on, and harassment of, journalists, and several
prosecutions remain unresolved. While some media outlets demonstrate
willingness to criticize the Government, threats of violence and
economic or political pressure lead to self-censorship or biased
coverage. Trafficking in persons and crimes involving violence against
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons are
also areas that the GoM needs to address.
We will continue to advocate for these and our other policy goals
in Montenegro.
Question 3. Prior to North Macedonia's name change referendum,
U.S. officials warned of secret Russian efforts to influence the vote
by funding pro-Russian groups that opposed the name change in both
Greece and North Macedonia. Russia continues to oppose North
Macedonia's accession to NATO and in the past it has gone to great
lengths to stop new countries from joining NATO, even supporting a
failed coup in Montenegro:
What actions, whether overt or covert, have we seen Russia take to
obstruct North Macedonia's accession to NATO? Which individuals
or organizations received support from Russia in opposition to
the country's name change, both in Greece and in North
Macedonia? Answer can be provided in classified format if
necessary.
Answer. Russia has employed malicious tactics against the United
States and Europe to drive a wedge into the transatlantic relationship,
weaken confidence in America's commitment to Europe, and undermine the
successes that we have achieved since the end of the Cold War. It
continues its aggressive behaviour toward others by interfering in
elections processes, promoting corrupt practices, and advancing non-
democratic ideas. Toward these malign ends, Russia has worked to
undermine implementation of the Prespa Agreement with Greece. These
actions are consistent with Russia's destabilizing activities across
the region. We have been clear that any efforts to undermine democratic
processes by a foreign power are unacceptable. We are working with our
Allies and partners in Europe to identify and expose Russian
disinformation and to promote accurate messages that advance freedom,
prosperity, and security in Europe.
The United States and Russia have very different visions for the
future of the region. Russia believes its interests are served by
sowing friction and tensions. The United States believes that the
interests of the people of North Macedonia are best served by respect
for human rights, fundamental freedoms, transparency, rule of law, and
understanding based on shared values and a shared future.
Question 4. According to the Open Society Institute's Media
Literacy Index North Macedonia is the European state least prepared to
deal with fake news, largely due to challenges with its education
system. Russia is actively promoting Russian-language media outlets in
North Macedonia, giving them a vehicle to easily spread disinformation:
What is the United States doing to help North Macedonia increase
its resiliency to disinformation campaigns, particularly
Russian disinformation campaigns?
Answer. Russia does not accept the post-Cold War choices made by
countries in favor of integration with the West. In contrast, the
United States supports EU membership for all the countries of the
Western Balkans and NATO membership for those that seek it.
In the case of North Macedonia, Russia has spoken out against the
country's democratically chosen NATO path and in advance of the
referendum on the Prespa Agreement it sought to make overcoming this
long-standing dispute and reaching an agreement on the name much
harder. The U.S. Embassy in Skopje works alongside the State
Department's Global Engagement Center to monitor the spread of
disinformation on Prespa and NATO. In addition, we support civil
society efforts to analyze and debunk disinformation.
USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives has provided technical
assistance to three of the largest and most influential media outlets
in North Macedonia, improving their ability to counter malign
disinformation campaigns. The U.S. Embassy also supports training for
government communicators and journalists to learn how to succeed in
disinformation-laden environments.
Question 5. In a March 2019 report, State's Overseas Security
Advisory Council reported that approximately 156 North Macedonia
nationals traveled to join terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria
and that 83 of them have returned to North Macedonia:
Other than the seven who have been convicted and sentenced, what
has happened to them? What is North Macedonia's strategy for
dealing with returning foreign terrorist fighters? Do they pose
a threat to North Macedonia or to NATO forces that may in the
country?
Answer. We commend North Macedonia for repatriating seven of its
citizens in August 2018, who had been detained by the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) while fighting for ISIS. In March, these seven Foreign
Terrorist Fighters pled guilty to terrorism-related offenses, and each
received sentences between 6 and 9 years in prison.
With the repatriation and convictions, North Macedonia set an
important example for all members of the Coalition to Defeat ISIS and
the international community. As the United Nations recognized with U.N.
Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2396 in 2017 and UNSCR 2178 in
2014, foreign terrorist fighters are a global problem requiring the
attention of the global community. International cooperation to address
the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters in SDF detention is
critical. Only repatriation provides a long-term solution to detained
foreign terrorist fighters who traveled to Syria to join ISIS.
Further, the Government of North Macedonia adopted in March 2018
the 2018-2022 National Counterterrorism Strategy and a standalone 2018-
2022 National Strategy for Countering Violent Extremism, both
accompanied by National Action Plans. The National Committee to Counter
Violent Extremism and Counterterrorism (NCCVECT) partners with the
international donor community to implement the action plans. This
cooperation includes programming to prevent violent extremism, develop
community resilience, and reform prison practices.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Philip T. Reeker by Senator Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question 1. North Macedonia's membership would increase the
integration of the entire Balkan region into Western structures and
institutions. What economic benefit to the region do you anticipate
from North Macedonia's NATO membership and how could that benefit in
turn be strategically useful to NATO?
Answer. North Macedonia's NATO membership will contribute to
regional stability, security, and prosperity. The greater stability and
security membership brings give confidence to consumers, businesses,
and investors--including foreign investors--boosting economic growth.
Increased consumption leads to greater opportunities for employment;
more public investment leads to better infrastructure. Economic
prosperity engenders good neighborly relations and open trade. A stable
and vibrant economy attracts high-quality investment from foreign
companies that respect the rule of law and demand a level playing
field. North Macedonia has already seen an increase in foreign direct
investment during the NATO accession process, and its economy is
projected to sustain steady growth rates. NATO membership and
associated reforms that strengthen the rule of law and fight corruption
will bolster North Macedonia's institutional framework and provide it a
stronger base for pushing back on Russia, China, and other malign
actors. Stronger, more prosperous NATO Allies in turn contribute more
to collective burden sharing.
Question 2. How would the increased military, political and
economic integration of the region due to North Macedonia's NATO
membership offset foreign influence from Russia, China or other
countries working against U.S. interests? What threats would it help
mitigate?
Answer. North Macedonia's membership in NATO will counter Russian
efforts to sow discord and division in the region and other
destabilizing threats. Allies have broadened their attention to China's
activities in Europe too. The United States is leading the discussion
by highlighting the potential dangers to NATO command & control and
communications posed by Chinese telecom providers, such as Huawei. The
United States emphasizes to Allies and partners the potential
consequences of Chinese investment in, and ownership of, critical
transportation infrastructure such as ports and airports.
Countries like North Macedonia, which have faced direct effects of
Russian disinformation and problematic Chinese investments, contribute
to a unified response to malign actors in Europe. Coordinated action by
NATO Allies strengthens regional stability and our collective security.
Question 3. How would increased people-to-people (and military-to-
military) integration make the Balkan region less vulnerable to Russian
disinformation?
Answer. Russia does not accept the post-Cold War choices made by
countries in favor of integration with the West, and has employed a
range of malicious tactics against the United States and Europe to
drive a wedge in the transatlantic relationship, weaken confidence in
our commitment to Europe, and forestall the Western Balkan's Western
integration. It aggressively seeks to incite divisions, interfere in
elections processes, promote corrupt practices, and advance non-
democratic ideas. In contrast, the United States supports EU membership
for all countries of the Western Balkans and NATO membership for those
who want it and are capable of meeting the requirements for accession.
We are supporting North Macedonia's further steps towards Western
integration and pushing back on Russia's attempts to hinder these
efforts. As part of the NATO accession process, military-to-military
partnerships led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Ministry of
Defense of North Macedonia continue to strengthen the country's Western
orientation. The State Department also supports a variety of
programming to increase people-to-people ties. The State Department's
Global Engagement Center monitors the sentiment of social media
conversations and the spread of disinformation on NATO and other
political events. Those analyses inform targeted, public engagement
activities by the U.S. Government and our partners, which are making
the region less vulnerable to disinformation. People-to-people
exchanges are further integrating the people of North Macedonia and the
Balkans within Western institutions, further countering the
disinformation narratives Russia peddles.
Question 4. How is the Prespa Agreement and North Macedonia's NATO
accession an argument against nationalist political movements
throughout Europe and how can the negotiations of the Prespa Agreement
serve specifically as a model for the resolution of other conflicts or
disagreements?
Answer. The implementation of the historic Prespa Agreement and the
resolution of the name dispute with Greece underscore that North
Macedonia is willing to make the sacrifices and compromises needed for
peace and stability. North Macedonia serves as a model to the region,
and the Prespa Agreement underscores to Serbia, Kosovo, and others in
Europe that forward-looking agreements based on compromise can secure a
better future.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Kathryn Wheelbarger by Senator Robert Menendez
Question 1. Ms. Wheelbarger stated that seven North Macedonia
nationals were convicted of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to
6-9 years in prison. What is North Macedonia's plan for ensuring that
after their release from prison they do not pose a threat to North
Macedonia or to any NATO forces that may be in the country? How will
North Macedonia handle any attempt by those nationals to travel abroad
following their release?
Answer. Answer: North Macedonia remains committed to cooperating
with the United States and the international community to crack down on
violent extremists. This commitment is underscored by the fact that in
March 2018, North Macedonia's Government adopted the 2018-2022 National
Counterterrorism Strategy and a standalone 2018-2022 National Strategy
for Countering Violent Extremism, both accompanied by National Action
Plans. Following their release, local security services will monitor
the seven convicted terrorists using physical and technical means. Any
continued association with ISIS or other terrorist groups would be
documented and could be used as evidence in future prosecution. North
Macedonia also maintains a travel watch list, which they actively
monitor and utilize. The watch list includes any individuals convicted
of terrorist activities. The Border Police Unit is committed to
enforcing North Macedonia's border security related laws.
Question 2. In a March 2019 report, State's Overseas Security
Advisory Council reported that approximately 156 North Macedonia
nationals traveled to join terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria
and that 83 of them have returned to North Macedonia. Other than the
seven who have been convicted and sentenced, what has happened to them?
What is North Macedonia's strategy for dealing with returning foreign
terrorist fighters? Do they pose a threat to North Macedonia or to NATO
forces that may in the country?
Answer. North Macedonia continues to be proactive, taking a strong
stance against returning foreign fighters. Local security services
closely monitor all individuals of concern in a counterterrorism
context. North Macedonia has sought to investigate, detain, and
prosecute any individuals associated with terrorism, including the 83
known returnees. Police operations resulted in the arrest and
subsequent prosecution of 25 of these individuals; prison sentences
ranged from one to seven years. Security services continue to
investigate the individuals who remain at large with the goal of
developing enough evidence to allow for detention and prosecution.
North Macedonia's strategy for future returnees is to prosecute them in
accordance with recently implemented national plans. The North
Macedonian National Committee to Counter Violent Extremism and
Counterterrorism (NCCVECT) partners with the international donor
community, including the United States, to implement the action plans.
This includes programming to prevent violent extremism, develop local
community resilience, and reform prison practices, among other areas.
Question 3. Ms. Wheelbarger stated that national-level security
forces are receiving DOD counterterrorism training. How would you
assess the capability of North Macedonia's local security forces and
police to handle terrorism issues, particularly returning foreign
terrorist fighters who may be in their jurisdictions? Is the U.S.
assisting with training local security forces to deal with terrorist
threats?
Answer. North Macedonia's law enforcement capacity to detect,
deter, and prevent acts of terrorism continues to improve as a result
of training programs and the development of operational plans to
prevent and respond to possible terrorist attacks. The U.S. Embassy's
Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) and Regional Security Office,
working with the Department of State's Counterterrorism Bureau and
Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Antiterrorism Assistance program (DS/
ATA), offered various types of training events for members of the
National Committee for Countering Violent Extremism and Countering
Terrorism (NCCVECT), law enforcement officers and investigators,
prosecutors, and other government stakeholders.
Question 4. Please describe how North Macedonia's troop
contributions have specifically benefitted U.S. and NATO missions in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo.
Answer. North Macedonia's valuable contributions to regional and
global security far outweigh its size. Since the Kosovo Force (KFOR)
mission began in 1999, North Macedonia has continuously provided a
dedicated element of 13 individuals that provide logistics support to
KFOR. North Macedonia has deployed 490 military personnel to Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF), 2,700 military personnel to the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, and more than 400
personnel to the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) in Afghanistan. These
personnel have served alongside U.S. and NATO forces. For example,
North Macedonian forces conducted a co-deployment with the Vermont
National Guard, performing base security and staff officer work. This
represents more than 3,500 personnel that the United States or other
NATO Allies did not have to send into theater.
Question 5. I understand that U.S. forces have conducted some
training exercises at North Macedonia's Krivolak Training Area and it
has terrain unlike any other training area in Europe. What specific
value does access to Krivolak provide for NATO forces? Please provide
the specific plans that the U.S. and NATO have to conduct exercises at
Krivolak over the next two years.
Answer. North Macedonia's training area at Krivolak is indeed
unique and provides substantial value to U.S. and NATO forces. The main
attraction of the Krivolak training area is the unfettered maneuver
space that it offers. Krivolak's current usable area allows for a
battalion-sized maneuver space. Once the northern portion of the range
is cleared and declared safe of old unexploded ordnance, the training
area will be even larger, including a total of 225 square kilometers.
In addition to this, the Ministry of Defense has intentions to expand
the borders of the training area to encompass 340 square kilometers,
upon which a brigade-sized element could maneuver. The geographic
location of Krivolak (three-hour drive from Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo)
makes it much more attractive, from a cost, time, and mission
perspective, than having U.S. KFOR units train in Graffenweohr,
Germany. The U.S. forces to the KFOR mission rotate every nine months.
The last two iterations have trained at Krivolak to maintain their
warfighting skills and readiness, and future rotations plan to continue
this practice as part of regular training. Currently the 56th Stryker
Brigade from the Pennsylvania Army National Guard is participating in
the DECISIVE STRIKE military training exercises in Krivolak. A total of
approximately 1,300 U.S. personnel will be involved in the exercise,
the majority coming from the two participating battalions of the 56th,
with additional soldiers from the 19th Special Forces from the Colorado
National Guard and personnel from U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR). North
Macedonia's army is also participating with approximately 1,300
personnel. Other NATO Allies participating are Albania, Bulgaria,
Lithuania, and Montenegro. USAREUR is discussing plans to utilize
Krivolak for its DEFENDER '21 exercise; initial assessments are for a
brigade-sized force to train at Krivolak.
Question 6. I understand that NATO will have to fund
infrastructure upgrades at the Krivolak Training Area to maximize its
utility for military training. How much will those upgrades cost, and
how much of that cost will the U.S. bear? How valuable would such an
upgrade be for military readiness?
Answer. North Macedonia is committing national funds to improve the
training area, including rehabilitation of a previously defunct rail
line to facilitate transportation of equipment to and from Krivolak
from other European destinations. NATO would only invest funding if
doing so would be of direct benefit to the Alliance. The Ministry of
Defense and the General Staff are currently developing their long-term
improvement plan for Krivolak. USAREUR and 7th Army Training Command
have provided recommendations of what to upgrade/construct to enable
brigade-level operations.
Question 7. Ms. Wheelbarger stated that the U.S. is working on a
bilateral MOU with North Macedonia that is "intended to guide North
Macedonia towards its reform goals." Upon completion of the MOU, do you
commit to share the MOU with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
Which reforms specifically does that MOU address? What will DOD's role
be in helping North Macedonia achieve those reforms?
Answer. Yes, the document is in final review, and we will share the
MOU once complete. Specifics will be contained in the final document;
however, the Department's role in helping North Macedonia achieve
reform goals will be similar to our role with other partners and Allies
and will be conducted in accordance with applicable law, policy, and
regulations.
Question 8. I understand that since North Macedonia does not have
its own air defense capacity, Greece and Bulgaria have volunteered to
provide air defense support (contingent on acquiring F-16s in
Bulgaria's case). Will their support be sufficient, or will
contributions from other countries be required? Which other countries
would be willing to provide air defense support if needed? Is North
Macedonia planning on developing its own air defense capacity and if
yes, on what timeline?
Answer. The support offered by Greece and Bulgaria is sufficient to
meet current threats and is also a strong indicator of the Alliance's
overall capacity to deter or defeat threats in potential threat
scenarios. Upon accession and full membership, any air defense plan
would fall under the alliance air defense strategy, which may involve
other nations as deemed appropriate by military planning and allocation
of NATO assets. This would like mean that there would be no independent
requirement for North Macedonia to develop a fixed-wing air defense
capability.
Question 9. North Macedonia is working to reduce the number of
personnel in both its army and its Ministry of Defense (MOD) in order
to reduce the share of the defense budget spent on personnel. What
progress has North Macedonia made with these cuts? Has there been
opposition from within the military or external groups to the personnel
reduction and if yes, what impact has their opposition had on the
process?
Answer. The North Macedonian Ministry of Defense has made a
priority of optimizing its defense budget through the reduction of
defense personnel. The Ministry of Defense's (MoD) plan to reduce the
number of personnel to 650-700 has been drafted and is in the approval
process. The reduction of forces in the Armed Forces is a multi-faceted
transformation plan over the next 3-5 years. The planned method for
reduction of both the MoD and the Armed Forces is primarily via
attrition through retirement/separation and a simultaneous reduction of
authorized billets within the force structure. This approach, although
not immediate, will alleviate social and political repercussions and
mitigate opposition to the reduction. There will still be some MoD
employees who will need to be transitioned to other government agencies
or to the private sector workforce; however, this is pending approval
of the MoD reduction plan.
Question 10. To improve its budget planning and military
procurement system North Macedonia needs to change a number of its
laws, including one that requires government contracts to go to the
lowest bidder regardless of the quality of their product. Do all key
political actors, including major opposition parties, support such
legal changes despite their potential cost? Are companies or interest
groups that stand to lose from changes to procurement laws opposing
those improvements and if yes, what impact has their opposition had on
the legislative proceedings?
Answer. All key political actors have voiced support for making the
necessary changes to the military procurement law. There are no
indications of any key stakeholders planning to oppose the law.
Additionally, the U.S. Office of Defense Cooperation-Skopje supported
the North Macedonian Ministry of Defense in organizing multiple
seminars with members of Parliament and their staff. The purpose of
these seminars is to: increase and improve executive-legislative
relationships; increase understanding of Army transformation and
modernizations goals; jointly develop and understand requirements of
the MoD and the Army; and determine what the Defense and Security
Commission needs in order to advocate within broader Parliament for the
passing of defense-related reform laws.
Question 11. Last year the North Macedonia army reviewed its
current equipment to determine what should be disposed of and what will
be needed going forward. What progress has North Macedonia made in
implementing the findings of that review? In particular, North
Macedonia reportedly has excess quantities of small arms and ammunition
due to its personnel reduction. What is the Government's plan for
safely disposing of the surplus arms and ammunition such that it does
not end up in the wrong hands?
Answer. North Macedonia recognizes the need to dispose of equipment
properly in order to prevent proliferation or misuse. North Macedonia
has previously donated small arms, ammunition, and hand grenades via
U.S.-facilitated weapon donation programs. The majority of the
equipment was inherited from the former Yugoslav National Army,
purchased with national funds, or donated from partner countries. The
plan for divestiture of obsolete and unessential equipment is complete
and is pending final approval by the Government. The plan calls for the
disposal of equipment, weapons, ammunition, etc., in the following
ways: transfer to other government ministries/agencies; sale to
approved countries; donation to approved countries; demilitarization
and sale/donation to museums, etc., or destruction and sale as scrap
metal as appropriate. North Macedonia has identified all obsolete
equipment, catalogued it in detail, and created a plan to seek the
required approvals. In order to proceed with the divestiture of donated
equipment, the MoD must obtain approval from the donating country and
is proactively addressing this. The list of obsolete equipment is a 16-
page document containing 462 items varying from pistols, rifles,
machine guns, ammunition (7.62 and 20mm), mortars and ammunition (60mm,
82mm, and 120 mm), 76mm guns, 122mm Howitzers, 20mm Anti-Aircraft guns,
a variety of unguided rockets of multiple calibers, and a variety of
spare parts and tools. North Macedonia has requested U.S. advice on
best practices for divestiture. The Embassy's Office of Defense
Cooperation will work with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA),
USEUCOM, and the State Department's Weapons Removal and Abatement (WRA)
office to assist with the safe storage/destruction of weapons and
ammunition as requested or required.
Question 12. I understand that North Macedonia's MOD was set to
complete a review of its existing infrastructure to determine what
surpluses can be disposed of by June 2019. What is the status of that
review? Please provide any documentation of this review that is
available to the Department of Defense.
Answer. The review is in its final stages. It includes an
assessment of all existing infrastructure including locations,
requirements, roles, responsibilities, use, management, current
condition, and refurbishment needs. It will result in recommendations
for future needs, which sites and facilities to retain, opportunities
for consolidation, and options for disposal.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Kathryn Wheelbarger by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question 1. North Macedonia has been a steadfast partner in
international operations such as Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
Enduring Freedom and the NATO Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.
What does North Macedonia's military capability offer to NATO missions
specifically and what is the value to NATO of incorporating smaller
members of NATO in missions beyond their immediate region?
Answer. North Macedonia's commitment to the Alliance exceeds its
size. North Macedonia has demonstrated its willingness, capacity, and
capability to provide support to NATO missions. In addition to these
missions, they have provided support to NATO Allies including the
United States through the provision of access to training ranges,
support to logistics, and strong political action with regard to
returned foreign fighters. Once a member of NATO, these same
capabilities will be enhanced as interoperability continues to improve.
North Macedonia will be able to provide these improved capabilities
once it is a full member, able to act in NATO's common defense and able
to provide forces directly when and where the Alliance may need them.
Question 2. North Macedonia's membership would increase the
integration of the entire Balkan region into Western structures and
institutions. What is the strategic benefit of such integration from a
military perspective?
Answer. North Macedonia's membership in the Alliance will solidify
two decades of positive momentum towards regional security in the heart
of the Balkans, where U.S. and NATO forces have twice been forced to
intervene militarily. It also advances the Balkans towards western
integration and helps to inoculate it from Russia's malign influence.
The inclusion of another Ally who is interoperable and able to share
military information seamlessly enhances the full range of military
operations in the region. NATO accession also demonstrates that NATO's
Open Door Policy remains strong and serves as an inspiration for other
countries in the region to undertake reforms and make commitments
required to enhance domestic and regional stability.
Question 3. How would you quantify the benefit to NATO and U.S.
interests of bringing North Macedonia into the Alliance as a full
member rather than continuing to engage them as merely a reliable
partner?
Answer. The entrance of North Macedonia as a full member not only
increases the stabilizing influence in the strategic area of the
Western Balkans but allows for increased capability and capacity of the
alliance to deter Russia, to fight against global terrorism, and to
continue advancing interests as outlined in the National Defense
Strategy. Already a strong partner, as evidenced by its support to
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as a full member, North Macedonia
would provide a solid commitment towards the goals of the Alliance and,
if required, commit resources necessary to respond to threats. This
commitment includes, but is not limited to, the commitment of forces as
part of NATO's collective defense, a commitment to meet NATO defense
capability targets, and resource burden sharing. The Government of
North Macedonia is already committed to meet the goal of defense
spending at 2 percent of GDP by 2024. Furthermore, adding North
Macedonia fills in the continental land bridge, providing continuous
freedom of movement from the northern part of Europe to the southern
flank. Its accession provides continuous access from the Black Sea to
the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. All told, NATO membership is a key step
in continuing to optimize the Alliance.
_________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Annex II.--Business Meeting of July 25, 2019
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the
committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson,
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz,
Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey,
and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. I want to
thank all of you for coming today. We have got a robust agenda
with some legislation on it, one treaty, and a number of
amendments. We are going to commit that we are going to
consider today two major pieces of legislation, which have been
in the works for months regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I appreciate the hard work of the many members of this
committee who have contributed to this debate, and virtually
everybody has contributed in one fashion or another.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had a history of shared
strategic interests, but Saudi Arabia's recent conduct is cause
for grave concern. Everyone agrees that the murder of Jamal
Khashoggi was truly a horrendous crime that demands a response.
Like other members of the committee, I meet with officials of
virtually every other country, including that of Saudi Arabia,
and I have told the Saudis that they are only one Khashoggi
type event away from having to find a new partner. That has
consequences obviously for both sides, both for us and for the
Saudis, not the least of which is that the most likely partner
would be one of our two major competitors, and that would cause
considerable grief for us in the region. But nonetheless,
things cannot go on the way they are.
We have a couple of bills that have been produced, both
with a lot of input from other people. And I understand the
members' frustration with members of the royal family in Saudi
Arabia, and I understand members' frustration with arms sales
in the region, but if it is possible, we want to change Saudi
behavior. We want to change their conduct, and I believe we
ought to give them an opportunity to do that. And if that does
not happen, obviously, as I said, there is going to be--we are
both going to go in different directions.
We can either send a messaging bill, and I view one of
these as a messaging bill, to the President for a vetting, or
we can enact legislation that will drive and, more importantly,
form foreign policy as indeed this committee is charged with
doing and constitutionally we have the responsibility to do.
For this reason, today I will be opposing many--I will be
opposing most of the amendments that have been offered to
SADRA. Myself and others have negotiated the SADRA bill with
the White House, with the State Department, and with many
members of this committee, indeed, I think all members of this
committee.
When we get to it, we will offer the bill and the first
amendment--the first bill we are going to consider is Senator
Menendez's bill, which has a different approach than the SADRA
bill does. Obviously it sanctions members of the royal family
and also goes after arms sales in the region, both of which
will draw a certain veto from the President. I am going to
offer my bill, the SADRA bill, mine and Senator Shaheen's bill,
SADRA also. Senator Coons is a co-sponsor and so is Senator
Barrasso. There are other co-sponsors which I will mention in a
minute, too.
We have a number of amendments to that bill. The first
amendment that we are going to take up will be Senator
Menendez's amendment, and he can speak to that when we get
there, but it is similar to, if not identical to, the bill that
we will have voted on before that. If his amendment passes, I
will be withdrawing SADRA, and by that if--this is not sour
grapes or anything else. It is just we all have--we are all
busy people and we have other things to do. If his amendment
passes, that will also draw a certain veto to the bill, and we
accomplish the same thing by simply going to the floor and
making speeches or holding press conferences or what have you.
My objective truly is to have us have a say in foreign
policy. I want this committee to have that, and if we can pass
SADRA, I have reason to believe that it will become law, and we
will actually participate in the formation of foreign policy,
which we have all longed to do for a long time. I am going to
ask my colleagues to support the SADRA legislation unamended
and assert our voice and, more importantly, our authority as
the Foreign Relations Committee as we move forward.
The founding fathers really were very clear in a lot of
areas when they divided the responsibilities and power between
the first and second branch of government. They did not do this
on foreign policy. They indeed gave us each a say in it, and
that is what we are doing today is trying to effect our say in
it. I know everyone on this committee is anxious to have our
voices heard and reflect the formation of foreign policy, and
this SADRA bill gives us the opportunity to do that.
We are here today to engage in debate and consider the
legislation and nominations before us. This bill, the SADRA
bill, is not a partisan matter. It is a matter of grave
importance to the people of America. My objective here is to
have a substantive debate and to reach an agreement. And we
will reach an agreement, and that is whether we want to
participate in foreign policy or sit back and cede it to the
second branch of government.
However this comes out, I want to thank Senator Shaheen,
Senator Rubio, Senator Coons, Senator Barrasso, Senator
Gardner, Senator Isakson for co-sponsoring SADRA. I would also
like to thank Senator Merkley for his work and his inspiration
in the ESCAPE Act for which we have--which is the genesis for
Title 3 of the SADRA bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator
Young's work for attempting to end the war in Yemen. He was not
the only one. There are others, but I think he has been the
leader on that, and I would say that that is an inspiration for
a significant part of this bill also.
I also want to thank Senator Menendez and Graham for their
construction of the Menendez-Graham bill, which takes an
entirely different tact. I really think that that is going to
be constructive as we deal with the Saudis. I suspect that bill
is going to get a very significant vote, and I think that we
will be able to use it as we--as we talk with the Saudis and
urge them to change their conduct. It will not become law, but,
nonetheless, I think that it will actually help move the needle
as we urge them to change their conduct.
Also on the agenda is Senate Bill 1441, the Protecting
Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019. I want to thank Senator
Cruz and Shaheen for working on the Cruz substitute amendment
for this bill, which I will be supporting. This bipartisan
measure would sanction companies that laid pipes for the Nord
Stream 2 and TurkStream pipelines. It nears a similar bill
which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by voice vote.
The pipelines could result in further destabilization and grave
injury to the Ukraine and the enrichment of the Putin regime.
They put at risk the security of NATO member states. This bill
reflects a specific targeted approach to push back against
Russia. I believe it could have a path forward for its
enactment if it stays narrow and targeted, and, thus, I will
oppose all amendments besides the Cruz substitute.
Finally, we will consider the proposal for the North
Atlantic Treaty of 1949 and the accession of the Republic of
North Macedonia. Welcoming North Macedonia into NATO will
finish a long-overdue piece of business, cement the Prespa
Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia, and strengthen
Allied defenses against Russia malign influence in the Balkans.
The nominations on the agenda today are incredibly
important, none more than so than Kelly Craft to be U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations. This position has been
unfilled for 6 months. We need Ambassador Craft in place before
the U.N. Assembly in September. We also have nominees on the
agenda each for Libya, Mexico, the UAE, and the OECD. We need
to get these noms to the floor as soon as possible. And with
that, I will turn to the floor over Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off
by saying I am very pleased that we were able to come together
and reach an agreement on a path forward for the legislation on
the agenda today as well as a package of nominations. And I
also want to thank all of the other senators on this committee
on both sides who worked to get us to the agreement today and
who spoke out on the importance of maintaining the tradition of
bipartisanship on this committee.
For many decades, this committee has stood alone in the
Senate, a bipartisan haven in the midst of the tidal wave of
partisanship. It is in this committee that senators from both
parties have come together to craft critical pieces of
legislation at times of great crisis in our country. We are the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We represent America's face
to the world, and it is always better when we can speak with
one voice about America's foreign policy. That is why I am
pleased we were able to come together on an agreement today on
legislation and nominations.
Let me outline what that agreement is. We have agreed to
place 13 nominees, including Kelly Craft, the nominee to be
ambassador to the United Nations, on the agenda. I would note
that while I do not support a number of these nominees, we have
completed their vetting process, and I supported adding them to
the agenda. However, for Mr. Zuckerman and Mr. Manchester, we
still had outstanding requests related to allegations of sexual
harassment and a hostile work environment. I am glad that the
chairman agreed to withdraw them until the White House responds
to my letter requesting that Diplomatic Security conduct
additional vetting. If the White House responds to my letters
requesting additional vetting, both of those nominees will be
cleared for a business meeting in early September.
I am also shocked that the White House has refused to
provide the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with full and
complete copies of the U.S. agreements with Mexico and
Guatemala on migration. As was clear in our hearing yesterday
where we had the State Department legal adviser that I was
pursuing, the administration is refusing to even answer basic
questions about these agreements, including whether they are
binding under international law. I appreciate that the chairman
has agreed to hold an open hearing on Mexico in September and
that he will be joining my request for the full Mexico and
Guatemala agreements and implementing arrangements. Once those
steps are completed, in spite of my deep concerns about Mr.
Bremberg's policy positions, which are out of line with most
Americans' and many Republican views, I will also agree to put
Mr. Bremberg on a business meeting.
I also look forward to discussing with you, Mr. Chairman,
in the weeks ahead a broader path forward on how we can get
timely and full responses from the administration on basic
informational purposes so that we can maintain the bipartisan
tradition that our predecessors so wisely chose. I sincerely
hope that this broader discussion is a fruitful one, not just
for the smooth running of the committee and this 116th
Congress, but for the benefit of future Congresses and all
Americans to come.
When the next war comes, when the next attack strikes
America, the leaders of this committee will need to bring the
two parties together, indeed, to bring the entire American
people together, to respond to the crisis of their time. As
senators we have a responsibility to nurture and strengthen the
institutions that we are a part of. And our predecessors,
Republicans and Democrats alike, left us a strong committee,
one where Democrats and Republicans respect each other, where
we work out our problems based on comity.
But I just want to make one observation about comity.
Comity is not the mere acquiescence or capitulation to the will
of the majority, whoever that majority may be at any given
point. That is not comity. Comity is the deliberate,
consultative, negotiated process in which the majority and the
minority come together to form a pathway over to consensus. We
may not agree, as we will not today, on legislation, we may not
agree as it relates to the nominees, but we agree to a pathway
forward. And that pathway forward has to also observe the
rights of the minority, the rights that I have observed when I
was the chairman of this committee. And there needs to be
preserved a tradition that has continued today, and we see it
continue today. It needs to be preserved going forward, and I
look forward to working with the chairman and all members of
the committee to do so.
I want to speak briefly concerning the legislation on the
agenda. When we come to the Saudi bill, I will speak more
extensively on it. But I would just say to the chairman, with
all due respect, and I appreciate that he is trying to do
something that sends a message, I think it is a rather weak
message. And I would also say that I do not believe that that
bill can become law because I do not believe it will pass the
House of Representatives as presently written.
Secondly, if we as senators and this committee start down a
path in which the suggestion that a president, regardless of
which president is sitting in the White House, will not sign
something and that should be an automatic veto upon what we
decide to do, that is a dangerous path. If that was the view,
CAATSA would have never become law. When I and others joined
together to write CAATSA, we were told the same thing, it will
not become law, and then the Russians did what they did, and
ultimately CAATSA became the law of land, a critical law at
this point in time. I do not think we should be vetoing
ourselves before we have an opportunity to pass legislation
that we think is meaningful, and I will speak more directly
about the choices as we move forward.
I appreciate Senator Cruz and Shaheen's leadership on the
Nord Stream bill. I am opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
project. It poses significant risk to European energy security.
If completed, this pipeline will create a permanent alternative
export route to the Ukraine pipeline system. This means that
Nord Stream 2 would further undermine Ukraine's economic
security and potentially increase its vulnerability to further
Russian military incursions. Putin has complete disregard for
international rules. The Russian Federation has repeatedly used
its energy resources as a lever of power. It would be foolish
to think that Putin would not do so in the future and to give
him another powerful lever to use it against the West. So I
support that effort.
I support--though a small country, North Macedonia has made
notable contributions to international security missions. It
has deployed more than 4,000 troops to Iraq in support of U.S.
efforts. In 2018, North Macedonia boosted its contribution to
Afghanistan by 20 percent. It has also supported missions in
Kosovo after its support to the International Counter ISIS
Coalition. It is home to a military training ground unlike any
other in Europe, which will be a critical asset for all of
NATO. These are all strong arguments in favor of its inclusion
in the alliance. Admission of North Macedonia into NATO would
mark another important step towards fully integrating the
Balkans into international institutions that have helped to
contribute to peace and stability over the years, and I urge my
colleagues to support the protocol.
Mr. Chairman, we have a number of nominations on the
agenda. I support all of the nominations except for Craft and
Rakolta, and I will speak about those two as well as some
remarks I want to make prior to both. I am also pleased to see
that we are moving nine Foreign Service Lists. It is absolutely
critical that we move these expeditiously as the talented and
dedicated men and women of the Foreign Service depend on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let us start with the Craft
nomination due to its importance. Is there a motion to----
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on
the Craft nomination.
The Chairman. And actually there are two nominations. One
is to the U.N. Security Council and the other is to represent
the U.N. General Assembly. Is there a motion and a second?
Voice. So move.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded. Is there
debate? Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me start by
saying I oppose Ambassador Craft's nomination. I do not believe
that Ambassador Craft has the foreign policy or diplomatic
experience for a position as important as the U.S. ambassador
to the United Nations. In fact, prior to serving in Ottawa, she
had no relevant foreign policy experience at all. Given her
excessive time away from the post while in Canada, which I
believe is a dereliction of duty, I also believe that she lacks
the seriousness and professionalism needed to be our U.N.
ambassador.
As U.S. ambassador to Canada, Ambassador Craft had one job:
to represent the United States in Canada. Instead she spent
356, or 56 percent, of her time outside of Canada. Not within
Canada traveling. Outside of Canada. Let me repeat that. During
her 21 months assigned to Ottawa, she spent an entire year out
of Canada. Let that sink in. Now for my colleagues who want to
rush to say she was engaged in USMCA negotiations, I want to
underscore that State Department records show she spent only 40
days of those 356 days on travel related to USMCA. Instead she
spent 210 days in Kentucky or Oklahoma where she has homes. I
repeat, she spent 7 of her 21 months at home in the United
States. Last time I checked, not a single round of the USMCA
negotiations took place in Kentucky or Oklahoma. Should she be
confirmed as an ambassador to the United Nations, I would be
concerned that when an international crisis arises, we will
find her Kentucky instead of New York.
Perhaps most importantly, however, I do not believe
Ambassador Craft has the necessary experience to represent us
at the United Nations. This is a place where countries send the
most seasoned individuals they have to pursue their country's
interests on a global stage. Unlike previous nominees to this
post, she does not possess the foreign policy, diplomatic, or
experience in government of prior United Nations ambassadors.
Her only professional experience was running her own consulting
firm. Never in our Nation's history have we nominated such an
underqualified person to this critical post simply for being a
donor.
During her nomination hearing, Ambassador Craft displayed a
lack of knowledge on basic foreign policy issues. When asked
about the most pressing issues the U.N. faces, Mrs. Craft did
not mention North Korea's aggression, or nuclear proliferation,
or ongoing threats from Iran, the challenges of China's growing
influence, or the situation in Libya. When asked about the two-
state solution, she could not articulate a viewpoint. I am
convinced that Ambassador Craft has neither the experience nor
the skill set to successfully challenge the world's most
seasoned and often the most ruthless diplomats around the globe
working on behalf of their countries at the United Nations.
This nomination underscores the Trump administration's lack
of respect for diplomacy, for our diplomats, and for the U.N. I
will be voting against this nomination, and per committee
rules, I will also be filing minority views on Ambassador Craft
to be submitted to the clerk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Further debate?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If there is no further debate, there is a
motion to adopt----
Senator Menendez. I ask for a recorded vote.
The Chairman. The recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
Senator Graham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Udall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Menendez. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. Report?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 15, and the noes are
7.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry, and it is not because I will object, but I want to
establish it for the future. I understand that our dear friend
and colleague, Senator Isakson, is ill and is not in the
Senate, and since this is a case of first impression, he is
casting a proxy vote. Most of the time proxy votes are for
members who are in another meeting, but within the Senate
itself. So I assume that the rule will now forever be that any
member, even if they are ill and not in the Senate, will be
able to cast a vote by proxy. Is that a fair statement?
The Chairman. I think that is a fair statement. I mean, as
a matter of comity, we have always allowed members to cast a
proxy vote if they are not here.
Senator Menendez. A lot of them cast proxy votes when they
are not here in the committee, but as I--if some of us have a
Finance Committee markup going on right now or something else,
Judiciary, that is when a proxy has taken place. But when they
are not physically in the Senate, they have not been allowed. I
am not challenging it. I just want to establish it as the rule
for the future so when a future colleague on either side of the
aisle is ill and is not present, that they will be allowed to
file a proxy vote.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez, my ruling is going to be
that they can cast a proxy vote, whatever the reasons for
absence. I do not think either the chairman or the committee
or, for that matter, the Senate ought to be in the business of
litigating whether it is an excused absence, or a good absence,
or what have you.
Senator Menendez. That is fine by me.
The Chairman. But we are going to allow----
Senator Menendez. I just want to make sure that there is
not an objection in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for establishing that.
So did we announce the vote? What was the vote?
Voice. Fifteen to seven.
Voice. So we are headed for Bermuda now.
[Laughter.]
The Clerk. Fifteen to seven is the vote.
The Chairman. Leave your proxy. All right. The roll call
is 15-7, and the motion has been adopted.
What I would like to do now is to take the rest of those--
since we have got so much business to do this morning, I would
like to do the rest of them by voice vote with people being
able to record a no vote if they want to. Is that acceptable to
you, Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would only ask for a
recorded vote on Mr. Rakolta. I am willing to accept all the
others as a voice vote.
The Chairman. Well, let us----
Senator Menendez. And then I have some remarks I want to be
included in the record on Marks.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, let us start with Rakolta and
take that one.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman? And I do not object to the
voice vote on all the other nominees. I do want to point to one
thing. There are two Western Hemisphere nominees here, one for
Colombia, one for Mexico. I am not going to hold that up or
object to it. But I did want to point something out, and that
is we have been working now for the better part of a month to
schedule a hearing for the State Department on Western
Hemisphere topics. We agreed to delay one a few weeks ago
because they could not send us a witness. They were going to be
traveling with the Secretary. And then again now we cannot get
a--we cannot get a witness. We cannot get a State Department
witness from the Western Hemisphere to appear before the
subcommittee for reasons that no one will explain to us. They
are just--they are never available. And it just cannot be that
we sit here forever and can never hold hearings on the Western
Hemisphere because they refuse to show up. So I am not going to
hold up these nominees today because of that. These are
important posts. But I got to tell you, they are testing at
least my patience, so----
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I know a couple of
people that would be interested in that message, and I will see
that they do that. It is valid consideration. So is there a--on
the----
Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I just--I want to publicly go
on record and indicate to Senator Rubio that if indeed you feel
like you reach that point, we will stand in solidarity with you
and do whatever it takes to get the State Department----
The Chairman. I think we all will.
Senator Young. I have had some previous challenges, so.
The Chairman. I think we all do. All right. So let us--you
wanted a roll call vote or----
Senator Menendez. I would like to speak first on that.
The Chairman. Please.
Senator Menendez. Okay. And I share Senator Rubio's
concern, not only the Western Hemisphere, but his challenges as
the chairman of the subcommittee in getting administration
witnesses is a challenge we collectively face when we are
trying to get witnesses before the full committee from the
State Department. So I am happy to join him in that.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez, before you speak on
Rakolta, can we have a motion to send that to the floor, the
past recommendation?
Voice So moved.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded that Rakolta
been sent to the floor. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, the United Arab Emirates
continues to be an important partner of the United States in a
part of the world where we need reliable, capable partners. The
Emirates host the Al Dhafra Air Force Base and have made
significant positive reforms. I do have some serious concerns
with their foreign policies over the past few years, including
their military involvement in Yemen and associated concerns
over detainees as well as their ongoing support for various
actors across Libya and Sudan, although I do applaud them for
moving out of Yemen as they have stated that they will leave.
That is part because of what this committee and individuals
have done as well.
I believe that we are best served with qualified, capable,
and transparent ambassadors promoting American interests around
the world. I also believe Mr. Rakolta is a successful,
competent person who will represent and advocate for the United
States. However, I have serious concerns about Mr. Rakolta's
failure to be fully transparent to this committee. When asked
in this committee's questionnaire, Mr. Rakolta initially failed
to list more than 50 companies on whose boards he sits. Now,
you might be able forget one or two, but you cannot forget 50
of them.
He also did not initially disclose that he served on the
board of a nonprofit that was the subject of a Federal
investigation. While serving on that board, in 1 year he
approved $150,000 in payments to the organization's executive
director, who was also a government employee that was already
receiving $180,000 salary for doing the same work that the
nonprofit reported to do. During and after Mr. Rakolta approved
those payments, that same government official oversaw the
development of the budget and bidding process for a $220
million government contract, and then ultimately guided the
selection of the winning bidder, his construction company. An
independent audit later found that the contract award process
appeared to have been designed to provide an unfair advantage
to Mr. Rakolta's company.
As we have discussed, so many of the challenges we are
having with some of the nominees before this committee are
related to the White House's apparent lack of thorough vetting,
yet here we are. I appreciate that Mr. Rakolta cooperated in
following up with our questions, but I believe we must be the
ones to hold our nominees accountable. I will be voting against
this nomination, and per committee rules, I will also be filing
the minority view for Mr. Rakolta. I will be submitting to the
clerk by Monday.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez. Is there
further debate?
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, yes.
The Chairman. Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. I think it is helpful to offer some
background on the many companies upon which Mr. Rakolta serves
as a board member. He is the chief executive officer and owner
of one of the largest construction companies in the world that
provides--builds airports, hospitals, and factories all over
the world. And any time they begin any project, they form an
LLC or a similar entity for a particular project. And over his
lifetime, he has literally been on hundreds of boards or
entities. And when he was asked to write down the name of the
entities where he served as a board member, my understanding is
he put down all those where he is a board member of an entity
that is currently operating, but did not think to put down some
where the project has been long completed, the project is no
longer underway.
And so it would be quite impossible to have a memory to
delve back into all those LLCs. He ultimately engaged in an
effort to try and find all the LLCs where the entity had not
been closed, but where he still is shown as a--as a board
member. I would also note that he is a person of high integrity
and great capability. I have a personal connection there in
that he is--by law he is an extended family, if you will. He
was the brother-in-law of my brother before the divorce.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are going to need a legal opinion on
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Romney. That is a truly attenuated relationship,
but I have--I have a great deal of personal respect for Mr.
Rakolta and for the ethical conduct of his business practices,
and the formation of many, many LLCs associated with the type
of business that he participates in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, a brief comment.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Number one, I see that you are--I
appreciate your warmth that you can speak so highly of him
notwithstanding the present relationship.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. But I would just simply say that if we
could on a tertiary look find the 50 companies, that I am sure
he could have as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Shaheen. Can I just get a clarification from
Senator Romney as to whose divorce it was?
[Laughter.]
Voice. Not yours.
Senator Shaheen. I am just kidding.
[Laughter.]
Senator Romney. That would be complicated.
Senator Rubio. But no matter what, Mr. Chairman, anyone
with those kind of relationships should never be allowed to
vote by proxy.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We will put that as a footnote, sir. Okay.
The motion has been made to accept Mr. Rakolta. The clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
Senator Graham. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
Senator Portman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Udall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Menendez. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 15; the nays are 7.
The Chairman. The motion has been adopted. Let us move to
consider the other nominations and the 650-plus service
officers on the nine Foreign Service Lists, and we will allow
anyone to register a no vote on any individual if that is okay.
Voice. Motion to consider en bloc.
The Chairman. Okay. To adopt en bloc.
Voice. And to adopt en bloc.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Voices. Second.
The Chairman. All right. It has been moved and seconded
that we adopt en bloc. Is there debate?
[No response.]
The Chairman. There being none, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. Is there anyone who wants
to be recorded as a no on any of these?
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I just want my remarks on
Ms. Marks to be included as if I had made them.
The Chairman. They will be included. Senator Merkley?
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would record myself as a no
on Marks.
The Chairman. Senator Udall will be recorded as a no on
Marks. Any further additions, subtractions?
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, could I be recorded as no?
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Markey will be recorded as a no
on Marks. All right. Having gotten that behind us, let us move
to the North Macedonia Treaty, and I think this one has been
talked about at great length. Is there debate on the treaty?
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. I have to cast a vote in the Finance
Committee, and I will go cast it and come right back. Will you
please hold the Saudi----
The Chairman. Yes, I will wait until you get here. I will
do so.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Voice. That is where I will be going as well.
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Paul. I have an amendment. Do you want me to talk
about that now or do you want to talk just----
The Chairman. Senator Paul, if you want to offer an
amendment, now is the time.
Senator Paul [continuing]. All right. As most of the
members of the committee know, I have not been for expanding
NATO. I do not think it adds to our national security. North
Macedonia spends about $120 million a year on their defense,
8,000 soldiers. I see North Macedonia and these small
countries' addition to NATO really more as being tripwires to
war and less of an asset to our national security. To put North
Macedonia's military spending in perspective, Bryce Harper has
a contract for $330 million from the Phillies, and North
Macedonia spends $120 million. That is about 1 percent. I think
like most of the other people we add to it, they will never pay
the 2 percent that we request.
And the amendment that I have to offer is an amendment that
would be put in as a reservation, and it is an amendment to
point out really the problem I see in us picking up all of the
money to pay for NATO. We pay about 70 percent of NATO's costs
now. The President has railed against this often. And I think
really we ought to pay proportional to our voting privileges,
and if there is 28 people in NATO, we ought to pay 1/28th of
the bill.
And so that is what my amendment essentially would do is
change our NATO fees to be proportional to our voting
percentage in NATO. And I ask for a roll call vote.
The Chairman. Are you moving to adopt Paul 1st?
Senator Paul. I do not know what the number is. It is the
one that makes----
The Chairman. We know which one it is.
Senator Paul. Okay.
The Chairman. And this requires everyone to pay the same
amount to NATO.
Senator Paul. Everybody would pay the same amount to NATO.
The Chairman. Okay. Everybody understand it? Any further
debate? Any questions?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Will you accept a voice vote on this?
Senator Paul. I would like a roll call vote.
The Chairman. Okay. A roll call has been requested on the
Paul First Degree regarding payments. Senator Paul, you have
not made a motion yet to adopt. Do you want----
Senator Paul. Motion to adopt.
The Chairman. There has been a motion to adopt. Is there a
second?
Senator Rubio. For purposes of a vote, yes.
The Chairman. There has been a motion and a second to
adopt the Paul First Degree. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
Senator Gardner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
Senator Graham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Voice: No by proxy.
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Voice: No by proxy.
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Udall. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Voice. No by proxy.
The Chairman. No by proxy. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 1; the nays are 21.
The Chairman. The amendment has failed. Is there--I would
like--Senator Menendez is not here, but I will offer Menendez
First Degree, Number 3, and that is the sense of the Senate
regarding NATO. Oh, okay. Well, that is fine. If he does not
want it, then I will withdraw it. I will withdraw that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Anyone else? Now is the time.
[No response.]
The Chairman. There being none, is there a motion to adopt
the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty?
Senator Shaheen. So move.
Voices. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded that the
protocol be adopted.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed, nay?
[No response.]
Senator Paul. No. Mr. Chairman, can you just record me as a
no?
The Chairman. Senator Paul will be recorded as voting no.
The ayes have it and the protocol has been adopted, and the
matter will be referred to the clerk.
Let us move to Senator Cruz's bill, Senate 1441, Protecting
Europe's Energy Security----
Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry.
The Chairman. The senator may inquire.
Senator Paul. We placed a formal request to hold this bill
over before the start of the meeting. I am just inquiring as to
why we would be bringing it up.
The Chairman. I am sorry. I did not realize there was a
formal request to do that. Are you requesting that now, Senator
Paul?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay. There has been a request that this be
held until the next business meeting. Is that correct?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay. First of all, I do not want to set a
precedent with this, but it is discretionary with the chairman.
And there has been a tradition, I guess, in this committee
where that was honored under usual circumstances. This is an
unusual circumstance in that this is a matter of urgency. And,
Senator Cruz, if you want to speak to that, you can.
Having said that, I am still going to honor Senator Paul's
request. However, we are not going to hold this until after the
September recess. Senator Menendez and I will negotiate for a
time for a business meeting next week, and we will take it up
next week and have a vote on that next week. Senator Cruz, are
you all right with that?
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, if we can follow through and
get it done----
The Chairman. We will get it done.
Senator Cruz [continuing]. As you noted, there is
considerable urgency in terms of the timing of this because
Russia is proceeding rapidly with building Nord Stream 2, and
every day of delay benefits Russia at the expense of the United
States.
The Chairman. I understand that. With that, I will hold
this over, and Senator Menendez and I will in good faith get a
hearing set for your bill next week.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
The Chairman. A business meeting set. Okay. With that, we
are down to two bills. One is Senator Menendez's bill, and the
other is a number of ours bill. And Senator Menendez has asked
us to wait, and that is a tough deal because everybody has got
other commitments. He indicated to me he was just going to cast
a vote and come back, so can we be patient for Senator
Menendez?
Senator Rubio. Can we start debating?
The Chairman. You know, his is the first--I want to run
his first. I think we will be able to move through. Lock the
doors, Bertie.
[Laughter.]
Voice. [Off audio.]
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Have we voted on the two Foreign Service
Lists?
The Chairman. We did. You were recorded as an aye.
Senator Shaheen. Okay, I did not realize that. Yes, I did,
but I did not realize that was wrapped into all of the other
noms.
The Chairman. Well, we did. I thought I was pretty clear
that we put all those together.
Senator Shaheen. That is fine. I just wanted to make sure--
--
The Chairman. Is there somebody on the 650 that you did
not like?
Senator Shaheen. No. No. No.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I sort of know how this is
going to play out, so I am happy to offer my remarks right now.
The Chairman. Well, if you know something----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman [continuing]. Could you put that in a sealed
envelope and----
Senator Murphy. Well, I guess there may be somebody who
would want to offer general remarks on the legislation.
The Chairman. Yeah, okay. Well, let us go there.
Senator Murphy. Maybe this is the time to do that.
The Chairman. This would be a wonderful time.
Senator Murphy. Okay.
The Chairman. We will all listen intently.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
bringing this process to the committee. I hope that we are
going to report out the strongest bill possible. I would
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Menendez. I do
think we have an independent responsibility as the Article I
branch to be able to come to our own determination as to what
lies in the best interests of American national security.
And in this case, I think there is bipartisan consensus
that the administration's policy, both with respect to Yemen
and Saudi Arabia, has lost its way. And I would rather that we
come to an agreement, Republicans and Democrats, about what
that new policy should be regardless of whether the executive
is prepared to sign it or not, and I think we could do that.
That would be messy I certainly understand, messier for members
of the President's party.
But I think the stakes are so important in Yemen where we
have a humanitarian catastrophe like we have seen nowhere else
in the world, and with our relationship with Saudi Arabia, that
we should have taken that course. I understand that is not
where we are today, but I still believe it is our better option
to report out as strong a bill as possible so as to not give
the impression that we are simply endorsing the
administration's policy on Saudi Arabia, but to continue to
send the message that both parties want a new direction, both
in Yemen and in the bilateral relationship.
The Saudis, importantly, have had a number of opportunities
to right the ship. Senator Durbin and I met with the new
ambassador yesterday, and she recognized that she is dealing
with what she called an oil spill. And the problem is that the
Saudis, instead of cleaning it up, have just poured more oil
out over the course of the last few months. They have continued
their campaign of repression, locking up women and journalists
and political activists at a rate that we had not seen even
before relationships here went sour. They still have not
fulfilled their commitment to the United Nations. U.N.
programs, food programs, health programs are shutting down as
we speak inside Yemen because of the Saudis, and also the
Emirates have not made good on their commitment.
And so I am at the point where I believe only with a
relationship by Congress are we going to be able to change
their behavior, and I think the way to do that is to report out
the strongest bill possible this morning. So I just wanted to
offer that as the reason for why my vote will be to strengthen
your bill, Mr. Chairman, and then to vote out Senator
Menendez's bill. I am glad, though, that this committee has
turned its full attention, not just to the relationship with
Saudi Arabia, but also to the war in Yemen.
I raised this issue first 4 years ago on the Senate floor
when not very many people in this country knew what was
happening in Yemen, and it does--and it is meaningful to me
that members of both parties recognize that the U.S. has a lot
to do with the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe, that al-
Qaeda and ISIS are getting stronger inside Yemen. And I am also
grateful to the Administration that I think just in recent days
and weeks has recognized that there is a unique role to play
for us for this country in trying to bring a political
settlement. And I am hopeful that that will bear fruit in the
coming days and weeks. So those are my general comments as to
the way forward.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy, thank you. Thank you for
those remarks, and there is very little of that that I disagree
with. This relationship, as you have pointed out, is on the
wrong trajectory, and if it does not correct, the relationship
is not repairable. And they are going to find another partner,
and we are going to have to live with that. My bill attempts to
give them one last opportunity to course correct. I suspect
that the more punitive bill, I suspect that there are
sufficient votes on this committee that the bill is going to go
out of here. I am hoping we can send both bills out. Like I
said, there is very little I disagree with there. Senator Rubio
was next and then, of course, Senator Coons.
Senator Rubio. Just in the interest of time for the same
general comments, I would acknowledge at the outset that our
alliance with Saudi Arabia is among the most difficult and
tenuous of those anywhere in the world. It is clear that we do
not share common values on many issues with those who govern
that nation. This is a country whose treatment of women is
abhorrent. There is zero religious tolerance. There is a series
of policies internally that are just not acceptable.
Their practices as well. I mean, this is a crown prince who
kidnapped the prime minister in Lebanon, which is an amazing
thing to say. He kidnapped a head of government from another
nation. Obviously we know of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, which
I have no doubt could never have been orchestrated without the
knowledge and/or approval of the crown prince, not to mention
it is a nation that has shown--a government that has shown
tolerance and, even in many cases, I think, contributed to the
spread of Sunni-based terror, whether it is through its
incitement of textbooks or allowing the folks to operate. So we
have a lot that makes this relationship very difficult.
What complicates it, however, is the situation in the
Middle East today as it stands is extraordinarily dangerous,
the role the Saudis play in confronting not just a dangerous,
but something that is really a tinderbox, which is what the
activities are. I cannot emphasize enough how every single day
we are one or two actions away from a broader regional conflict
that I do not think anyone has totally thought through in terms
of its implications and what it could mean.
And they do serve a role. As an example, the U.S. has
increased its defensive posture in the region. We have
additional military personnel stationed there now. They provide
a valuable role in that regard. So this balance between human
rights, of which I believe, without overstating it I hope, that
my commitment to human rights is, I think, equal to that of
anybody on this committee or, frankly, in Congress. And there
are human rights issues that we have not been deeply involved
in, but sometimes that has to be balanced by some pragmatic,
real-world realities. That has always been true of foreign
policy. It remains true in this era, and that is the balance we
are trying to strike.
And so I would just say the bills that are up before us
today, particularly the one you have worked on which I am happy
to co-sponsor, I think takes some pretty concrete steps forward
dealing, in my view, pretty strongly with someone who with a
nation, with a government that also happens to be a key
linchpin of our regional strategy in the Middle East. But I
think we have to always do so with the acknowledgment that we
also have to measure some of it, at least in the short- to mid-
term, because of the realities of what we are living with in
that region.
And so I hope we all keep that in mind that is it is
possible to condemn the things that the crown prince has done,
his recklessness, which I actually think makes the region more
dangerous, while at the same time not seeking to completely
implode a strategic alliance, at least at the given moment,
that is critical to our national security. It is a tough
balance. Oftentimes with foreign policy, we do not get a choice
between a really good option and a really bad one. We get a
choice between multiple terrible options, and we are trying to
pick which one is the least terrible. And I certainly think
this comes to mind when viewing these two issues that we are
about to confront.
So I just wanted that to be on the record. That is going to
be the chorus on some of my amendments and explanations, and I
think we are just saving some time. So thank you for the
opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rubio. The list I have
got is Senator Coons, Senator Gardner, Senator Kaine, Senator
Paul. I am going to start with Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just
express my appreciation that you and the ranking member have
worked a way for us to move forward while respecting the
decades-long comity. We have moved through a number of
important ambassadors, and we need to continue supporting and
processing qualified ambassadors. Yet we are standing for the
fact that this committee needs and expects witnesses for
hearings, background information on nominees regardless of who
the President is or the party in control.
There were many, many amendments filed for today. I wanted
to briefly speak to one.
The Chairman. Two hundred and fifty, give or take.
Senator Coons. Two hundred and fifty, give or take. Having
talked to a number of members, I recognize that the structure
and the language of this particular--it is Coons First Degree
Number 1--that many members may not have appreciated the way in
which I think. This particular amendment, which I got directly
from Congressman Malinowski in the House, strikes a good
balance. It is just a tick tougher in terms of accountability,
reporting, and under what conditions the President can waive
sanctions against those responsible for the murder of
Khashoggi, than the Risch bill which I have co-sponsored.
And I think many of us are looking for that point that is
the strongest possible imposition of requirements of reporting
and sanctions that has a shot of passing the Senate and
conceivably being signed. Whether it takes passing it by a
veto-proof majority or whether it takes further engagement,
this is in the NDAA. In the House it got 400 votes. I think it
strikes the right balance. But, Mr. Chairman, I understand you
are willing to make a commitment if I did not advance this for
a vote today. Is that correct?
The Chairman. I am.
Senator Coons. And what is that?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, what is your understanding?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are you going to have--you are going to
introduce it as a standalone, and we are going to have a vote
on it. Is that your understanding?
Senator Coons. That is my understanding because that then
allows members the chance out of the 250 amendments filed today
to take a moment and read it----
The Chairman. Fair.
Senator Coons.--and process it, and think it through
because I think today we have a fairly stark choice between
legislation that goes full bore after accountability for the
murder of Khashoggi and the role of the Saudis and a number of
other things we are troubled about, and a bill that is
carefully crafted to be enactable. And we may not achieve
enactment of--passage of an enactable bill today.
The Chairman. I think you have got that----
Senator Coons. And so I will leave this on the table, if I
might.
The Chairman. And I will make that commitment.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, could you repeat the deal
was?
The Chairman. This is a side deal.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coons. No one is getting divorced here. It is on a
need-to-know basis.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the divorce.
It has got nothing to do----
Senator Romney. Proxies?
The Chairman. Senator, what we have agreed to is that he
is going to introduce the bill as a standalone bill, and we are
going to have a vote on it in this committee.
Senator Romney. Excellent.
The Chairman. Fair enough?
Senator Romney. Excellent.
The Chairman. Let us see. Next I had Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, is this open mic time, or
are we sticking to Saudi Arabia?
The Chairman. Yeah, let us----
Senator Gardner. If it is open mic, I will talk about
another important matter I think the committee ought to pick
up, and that is in light of the action that Kim Jong-un has
taken again out in North Korea yesterday with the two
additional missiles firing, and his obvious failure in
negotiations to live up to the promises he made originally in
Singapore.
So I would hope that we could move the LEED Act. We moved
it last Congress. The Secretary of State supports the LEED Act.
It is Senator Markey's and I legislation that we have teed up,
and hopefully that is something that this committee could move
forward, tee it up, and get it out because of the continued
intransigence of North Korea.
The Chairman. We will discuss that further. I think there
is some information we need. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for doing
the work to bring this to a head. I will support the strong--
the strongest versions of the bills before, and I just wanted
to say why quickly. One of the things I admire about members of
the committee and I have noticed over the years is committee
members are really tough for their own people. So if you have
got a--if you have got a pastor who is imprisoned somewhere,
Mr. Chair, you have been very, very active for that. And I
think of Rob Portman on behalf of the Warmbier family, Otto
Warmbier.
Jamal Khashoggi was a legal resident of Virginia. Aziza al-
Yousef, one of the primary leaders of the women's rights
movement in Saudi Arabia, has been repeatedly imprisoned, was a
legal resident of Virginia for a long time studying at Virginia
Commonwealth University. Aziza al-Yousef's son, Zalil Habir,
who has been in prison for supporting women's rights, is a
legal resident of Virginia. And these are people who are
entitled to the home State senator going to bat for them. The
horrible way they have been treated, even if they were from
another State, I think I would be for the tough version of the
bill. But they are Virginians, and I want to go bat for them,
and so that is why I am going to support the stronger version.
I will say one other thing. I think it is always important
for the committee leadership to try to work with the White
House to find items of common accord, but I will sort of second
the statement of Senator Menendez. There are some points
where--that the White House might beat on something. That does
not trouble me. I remember introducing the Iran Nuclear Review
Act in February 2015, and President Obama both had me to the
Oval Office and got me on the phone the day of introduction and
said you are my friend, do not introduce this, and I guarantee
you I will veto it. And I said you got to do what you got to
do, but I got to do what I got to do.
And, you know, and what happened was that it obtained such
strong support in the body that they could not veto it. They
could not, and they had back down. And so sometimes a veto
threat is a threat. Sometimes we got to do what we can do and
send a strong message, and presidents can learn from that. But
I think this is one where we got to do what we got to do. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine. I appreciate those
remarks. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. I am going to support the Menendez amendment.
I think the very least we can do is suspend arms sales to Saudi
Arabia until we see a change in behavior. In fact, I think our
arms sales to everybody ought to be conditional on behavior. I
do think there is a fatal flaw in the wording, though, that
will make this amendment not really work that well.
The point is that there is a waiver in there where the
President can resume arms sales if there is any evidence that
Iran is supporting the Houthis. Well, there is evidence every
week of that. I mean, there is a U.N. report to the Security
Council within the last 6 months that says intervention is
illegally providing fuel to the Houthis. I mean, there is
evidence almost every day of that. So if you write in there
that we have to stop arms unless Iran is helping the Houthis,
well, we are really not stopping arms, and so I think it will
not work. And my only recommendation is that if we get a veto,
if you will look at the language, I think we can do better on
making the waiver less loose.
We always complain--we do stuff, and then we complain when
the President does not listen to us and he takes advantage of a
waiver, but the problem is we gave him the waiver. So anyway,
that is just a thought, but I will support the amendment.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Paul. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
thank you. We had a markup on prescription drug pricing in the
Finance Committee, so it was a particularly important vote that
we were dealing with. So I appreciate the courtesy of allowing
members to speak. Procedurally, is there any one of the two
bills presently up before us or are we speaking in general?
The Chairman. We were waiting for you.
Senator Menendez. Okay.
The Chairman. It was open mic. Some of it was on this
subject and some of it was not, but we will now take up Senate
Bill 398, your bill, so.
Senator Menendez. If I may.
The Chairman. You may.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, we
have watched new Saudi leadership come to power. Many of us
were hopeful that new leadership would bring welcome change and
reform to the Kingdom. The United States and Saudi Arabia have
a complicated, but ultimately important, strategic partnership.
And I think most of us would like to course correct this
partnership in order to feel confident that we are effectively
promoting our interests and our values.
So I have called on my colleagues to do--over--the past
year or so to look at some of the actions the Kingdom has
taken. The imposition of a blockade on Qatar has done nothing
to promote our interests in our security. In fact, we can all
agree that Iran has benefitted the most, and I am concerned
about the negative implications for regional security and
military integration. The Saudi leader effectively kidnapping a
Lebanese prime minster has done nothing to diminish the
influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah now has
more political support.
I could spend a whole meeting talking about Saudi Arabia's
atrocious human rights record, but let me just focus on its
disastrous campaign in Yemen, which has left 15 million people
on the brink of starvation, displaced 3 million, left tens of
thousands dead. The Houthis, who bear a responsibility as well
for these horrifying numbers, have only been emboldened
throughout this conflict, and Iran's influence in Yemen has
only grown. And then finally, in October of this year, the
Saudi Government and the U.N. special rapporteur just came out
with her report. I met with her, I think it was yesterday. It
became very clear that this is a state-sponsored murder. A
state-sponsored murder, they ordered the brutal murder of
American resident and journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul.
This administration and we need to respond. The
administration cannot or will not seriously evaluate our
partnership with this country and then align with the gentle
embrace of autocrats in rejection of democratic values and
human rights. The President seems incapable of condemning the
crown prince for his actions. So when the President will not,
Congress must.
And I am proud to have worked across the aisle with
Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and Murphy on
crafting a bill that does not throw away our partnership with
Saudi Arabia, but also sends a strong signal that our partners
cannot act with impunity. The bill carefully calibrates the
sentiment that I just expressed while continuing to support
Saudi Arabia's legitimate security concerns. The bill limits
the sales of the kinds of weapons the Kingdom has used to
slaughter civilians in Yemen. We believe we should, however,
continue to support Saudi Arabia's legitimate defense and
needs.
While we have stopped now, we affirm that we should no
longer refuel Saudi coalition aircraft for operations in Yemen,
clearly correlated with the rise in civilian casualties. And we
have to do what we can do all we can to support the U.N.-led
political process in Yemen and impose exacting costs on those
who are working against it and who are blocking humanitarian
access and providing material support to the Houthis. And
finally, this bill reaffirms that the administration must
follow the letter of the Global Magnitsky Law and must take a
firm stance for these human rights when it comes to Saudi
Arabia.
So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and in the
interest of time, I know the chairman will be calling up his
bill. Here is our problem. If at the end of the day the only
thing that goes to the floor is something less than the type of
consequence in which you will not have MBS high-fiving Putin at
the next summit, then we need to have a bill that has serious
consequences. I think that the chairman has tried to create a
piece of legislation that is an expression and I appreciate
that, but when the White House--when it has supposedly been
negotiated with the White House, it tells you everything about
what the bill does or does not do. It is the same White House
that has refused to condemn the crown prince for his role in
the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the same White House that in the
face of the mounting civilian deaths and humanitarian disaster
in Yemen saw fit to try to subvert congressional authorities
and push more weapons to the Kingdom and into this deadly
conflict, the same White House that has been silent about Saudi
Arabia's gross human rights abuses.
So while I appreciate the chairman's bill recognizes that
there is some reckless behavior, as the bill suggests, if at
the end of the day the crown prince can walk away and say to
himself, you know what, all I got was at best--at the very
best, classified a slap on the wrist, because the bill largely
gives the President permission to do all the things he can
already do. All the things he can already do. And that is why I
will be offering the bipartisan legislation that I understand
the chairman wants to vote on first as an addition--the
substitute, but as an addition to the chairman's mark. And in
the interest of time, I will consolidate----
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Would you like to make a motion to adopt,
Senator?
Senator Menendez. I so move.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Kaine. Second.
The Chairman. The motion has been made and seconded that
the committee adopt Senate Bill 398. Do you want a roll call?
Senator Menendez. Roll call.
The Chairman. A roll call vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
Senator Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
Senator Gardner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Udall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13 and the nays are
9.
The Chairman. The motion has been adopted. Senate Bill 398
will be sent to the floor.
I have before the committee Senate Bill 2066, the Saudi
Arabia Diplomatic Review Act, SADRA. There is no sense dragging
this out. The first amendment I am going to consider after our
agreement with Senator Menendez is Senator Menendez's First
Degree Amendment Number 82, as modified by the second degree
filed to it, which reflects the content of Senate Bill 398.
And so, look, we have had a long discussion about this.
Everybody knows what is in here. Again, like I said, if this is
added, it is no longer my bill. I will be withdrawing my bill
and the meeting will be over. No hard feelings to anyone. It is
not sour grapes, but it is--I am interested in spending time on
something we can actually do, and there is certainly a lot of
discussion that can be had on the floor. So with that, Senator
Menendez, did you----
Senator Menendez. I have spoken to it. I will move the
amendment.
The Chairman. Okay. The amendment has been offered,
Menendez First Degree Number 82. Has anybody got any comments
or questions?
Senator Young. I do.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Young.
Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I just do not want my vote to
be misconstrued. I have already spoken with the ranking member
about offering this piece of legislation, which he and I worked
together on, and I would--I would much prefer it to the
chairman's, though I do appreciate the chairman's handiwork in
trying to produce something that the President will actually
sign into law. I think that is important work. But my intention
is to vote no on this because I do not believe it would sink
your efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate?
Further comments?
Senator Menendez. So move.
The Chairman. The motion has been made and it has been
seconded. The clerk will call the roll on Menendez First Degree
82.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
Senator Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
Senator Gardner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Udall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Markey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker
Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
The Chairman. The motion has passed, and with that I am
going to withdraw the bill. Thank you, everyone, for your, I
think, good faith participation in this. And the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]