[Senate Prints 114-23]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



  
114th Congress }                                                 {S. Prt
 1st Session   }             COMMITTEE PRINT                     {114-23
                                                                 
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                           BUSINESS MEETINGS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                             First Session

                  January 6, 2015 to December 18, 2015
                  
   


                                     




             Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations






                   Available via World Wide Web:
              http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html     
                              __________               
                   
                   
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
  98-734 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2016       
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
      Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
     Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001                  
     
     
                   




                COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS         
                January 6, 2015 to April 1, 2015        

                BOB CORKER, TENNESSEE, Chairman        
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts


              Lester E. Munson III, Staff Director        
           Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director        
              Jamil Jaffer, Majority Chief Counsel        
            Margaret Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        



                          ------------        






               April 2, 2015 to December 18, 2015        

                BOB CORKER, TENNESSEE, Chairman        
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts


                  Todd Womack, Staff Director        
           Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director        
               Chris Ford, Majority Chief Counsel        
            Margaret Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        


                              (ii)        

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, January 28, 2015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-01-28-15

S. Res. 35. A resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of 
  the liberation of Auschwitz. Agreed to by voice vote...........     1
S. Res. 47. A resolution authorizing expenditures by the SFRC. 
  Agreed to by voice vote........................................     3


                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 26, 2015
   http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-02-26-2015

S. 553. End Modern Slavery Initiative Act of 2015. Agreed to, 
  with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote.     7


                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, March 26, 2015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-03-26-15

Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment Lists 
  (6). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................     9


                              ----------                              

                        Tuesday, April 14, 2015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-04-14-15

S. 615. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. Agreed to, 
  with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by roll call 
  vote (Yeas 19, Nays 0) [For further action, see H.R.1191]......    13
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
    ``A Nuclear Deal That Offers A Safer World,'' by Ernest Moniz    37


                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 21, 2016
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/052115--business--meeting

S. 802. The Girls Count Act of 2015. Agreed to, with an amendment 
  in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote...................    39
S. Res. 87. A resolution to express the sense of the Senate 
  regarding the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe . .  .. Agreed to 
  by voice vote..................................................    40
Nominations (7). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote...............    43
Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment Lists 
  (6). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................    43


                             (iii)        
                         Tuesday, June 9, 2015
             http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/060915

Nominations (6). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote...............    47
Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment Lists 
  (2). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................    47
S. 756. The Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015. Agreed 
  to by voice vote...............................................    49
S. 1635. Department of State Operations Authorization and Embassy 
  Security Act, Fiscal Year 2016. Agreed to, as amended, by roll 
  call vote (Yeas 19, Nays 0)....................................    49
                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, June 25, 2015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-06-25-15

Nominations (8). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote...............    83
S. Res. 204. A resolution recognizing World Refugee Day. Agreed 
  to by voice vote...............................................    83
S. Res. 207. A resolution recognizing threats to the freedom of 
  press and expression around the world. Agreed to by voice vote.    84
S. Res. 211. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate 
  regarding Srebrenica. Agreed to by voice vote..................    85
S.. 1643. Ensuring the Safety and Security of Iranian Dissidents 
  in Iraq Act of 2015. Agreed to, with an amendment, by voice 
  vote...........................................................    85


                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, July 29, 2015
   http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-07-29-2015

Nominations (12). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote..............    92
Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment List 
  (1). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................    92
S. 1632. A bill to require a regional strategy to address the 
  threat posed by Boko Haram. Agreed to, with an amendment in the 
  nature of a substitute, by voice vote..........................    92
S. 1875. The Afghanistan Accountability Act. Agreed to, with an 
  amendment, by voice vote.......................................    94
S. 284. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. 
  Agreed to, with an amendment, by voice vote....................    94


                              ----------                              

                      Thursday, September 24, 2015
             http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/9242015

S. 2078. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 
  Act of 2015. Agreed to by voice vote...........................    92

                        Thursday, October 1,1015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-10-01-15

Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment Lists 
  (3). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................   101
Nominations (13). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote..............   101


                              ----------                              

                       Thursday, October 8, 2015
    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-10082015

Nominations (11). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote..............   114
S. 2152. Electrify Africa Act of 2015. Agreed to, with 
  amendments, by voice vote......................................   116
S. 1789, U.S. Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015. Agreed to 
  by voice vote..................................................   115
S. Res. 274, A resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of 
  the peaceful and democratic reunification of Germany. Agreed to 
  by voice vote..................................................   115
S. Res. 278, Welcoming the President of the Republic of Korea on 
  her official visit to the United States and celebrating the 
  United States-Republic of Korea relationship, and for other 
  purposes. Agreed to by voice vote..............................   115
S. Res. 148, A resolution condemning the Government of Iran's 
  state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its 
  continued violation of the International Covenants on Human 
  Rights. Agreed to by voice vote................................   115


                              ----------                              

                       Tuesday, November 10, 2015
     http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-111015

International tax treaties and protocols (8). Agreed to, en bloc, 
  by voice vote..................................................   121
Nominations (9). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote...............   124
Nomination of Hon. Roberta S. Jacobson, of Maryland, to be 
  Ambassador to the United Mexican States. Agreed to by roll call 
  vote (Yeas 12, Nays 7).........................................   125
S. 2184. Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2015. 
  Agreed to, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by 
  voice vote.....................................................   134
H.R. 515, International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child 
  Sex Trafficking. Agreed to, with an amendment in the nature of 
  a substitute, by voice vote....................................   135
S. Res. 310. A resolution calling upon the President to condemn 
  the ongoing sexual violence against women and children from 
  Yezidi, Christian, Shabak, Turkmen, and other religious 
  communities by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants and to 
  urge the prosecution of the perpetrators and those complicit in 
  these crimes. Agreed to by voice vote..........................   133
S. Res. 302. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate in 
  support of Israel and in condemnation of Palestinian terror 
  attacks. Agreed to by voice vote...............................   133
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
A statement submitted by Senator Rubio regarding the nomination 
  of Hon. Roberta S. Jacobson....................................   137
A statement submitted by Senator Paul regarding the international 
  tax treaties...................................................   138

                       Tuesday, December 8, 2015
     http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-120815

S. Res. 189. A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate 
  regarding the 25th anniversary of democracy in Mongolia. Agreed 
  to, en bloc with S. Res. 326, by voice vote....................   142
S. Res. 326. A resolution celebrating the 135th anniversary of 
  the United States and Romania diplomatic relations. Agreed to, 
  en bloc with S. Res. 189, by voice vote........................   143
S. Res. 320, A resolution congratulating the people of Burma on 
  their commitment to peaceful elections, with amendments, by 
  voice vote.....................................................   144
Nominations. Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote...................   145
Senior Foreign Service, Foreign Service Officers, and Foreign 
  Service Information Officers Promotion and Appointment Lists 
  (5). Agreed to, en bloc, by voice vote.........................   145
  


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 28, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:48 a.m., in 
Room 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Johnson, Flake, 
Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Menendez, Coons, Udall, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman. Okay. I am going to call the meeting to 
order. I want to thank everybody for being here, and I know 
people have differing places to go. So what I thought I would 
do is walk through what we are going to do so when people 
arrive and we have 10 here, we can vote. But, again, thank you.
    This is the first business meeting of our committee. We 
have had the opportunity to organize the committee, establish 
our subcommittees, and set rules for the Congress. In addition, 
we will consider resolutions authorizing expenditures for the 
committee and commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 
liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp in Nazi-occupied 
Poland.
    First, we are considering the proposed subcommittee 
membership and jurisdiction for the 114th Congress. I have 
worked with Senator Menendez to structure our subcommittees and 
issues that they cover. I appreciate his support in this effort 
and the work of his staff in helping us strike the right 
balance. In modifying our subcommittees, I hope they will play 
an even greater role in the work that this committee does.
    I also want to thank each and every one of you for your 
willingness to serve on these important subcommittees, and I 
look forward to working with respective chairmen and ranking 
members. And I do want to say there was an extreme amount of 
interest relative to these committees this year, and I want to 
thank you for that. The subcommittee process I think will be 
very robust.
    I would also note that we are approving the chairmen, and 
ranking members, and membership of these subcommittees subject 
to the approval of waivers and other required procedures of the 
Senate Republican Conference and the Senate Democratic Caucus 
as appropriate. We are also considering the proposed rules for 
the 114th Congress. There are a handful of changes to the 
overall framework of the rules that have served this committee 
well in the past, and we hope that these rules changes 
demonstrate our effort to help ensure that our committee 
members get the support and assistance they need, particularly 
with respect to staff support at classified hearings, an effort 
I know Senator Menendez also strongly supports.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for his comments, Senator Menendez.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    Senator Menendez.  Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let 
me again welcome all our new members and our returning members. 
Senator Isakson, it is great to have you back on the committee 
after all the work you did on Africa and other issues. So, good 
to see you, and the same for all of our new colleagues. Again, 
I think this is one of the most revered and longstanding 
committees of the United States Senate, and I think you are 
going to find the exceptional scope of it to be incredibly 
important in terms of your work.
    We have a lot of work ahead of us, and I look forward to 
giving our input and carrying on the mission of one of the 
oldest and most revered committees in the Senate. I will look 
forward to working with you, again, Mr. Chairman, as I said at 
our first hearing in this Congress, in the same spirit of 
bipartisanship that marked our relationship in the last 
Congress.
    And in that spirit, I intend to vote for the rules, 
jurisdiction documents, and budget resolution before us, as 
well as S. Resolution 35 by Senator Mikulski, commemorating the 
70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. And I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
    I want to congratulate all of our subcommittee chairs and 
ranking members on their selections. As an ex officio member, 
along with the chairman, of the subcommittees, I look forward 
to visiting with you from time to time when hearings are held 
on certain topics that may be of interest to me .
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, when we get the quorum that 
you need for votes, I am ready to cast my votes.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, and I know Senator Coons just 
arrived. He did an outstanding job this morning, by the way, in 
a previous meeting. But we have one more member that is 
necessary. Does anyone want to speak to jurisdiction or rules? 
Any questions or comments? We might move on and discuss, if it 
is okay. Does anybody want to talk about S. Res. 35, the 
resolution that was just referred to?
    Senator Menendez.  Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, go ahead.
    Senator Menendez.  Yesterday I went to speak to the floor--
Senator Gardner was presiding--about the 70th anniversary of 
the liberation of Auschwitz. And we are losing a generation of 
the survivors of the Holocaust, and increasingly in doing so, 
those of us who are in the positions of public trust, and 
particularly on this committee and beyond, I hope, will 
continue to remember, particularly as it relates to what we saw 
in Auschwitz, which I visited last year.
    It is just such an incredibly moving place to visit and to 
understand the totality of man's inhumanity to their fellow 
man, the extent to which that can take place. So that when we 
say ``never again,'' it is, I think, critically important to 
mean what we say and to say what we mean. And in that respect, 
some of the work that this committee has been doing on the 
question of challenges in the world, the issue of anti-
Semitism, which is rearing its ugly head once again, is 
incredibly important. And this resolution, I think, speaks 
volumes to that, and I will look forward to supporting it. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  I am very pleased that this is the first 
resolution we are taking up, and I appreciate your comments 
yesterday on the floor. I know we have a quorum now. Does 
anyone else wish to speak to the resolution we are talking 
about? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I am going to go ahead and move through it 
quickly then. I know that--first of all, I would ask a motion 
to approve the committees and their jurisdiction.
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Without objection, so approved.
    I would also like to hear a motion, if we could, on the 
budgets for the committee itself.
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Johnson.  Second.
    The Chairman.  All in favor? [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I would like to hear a motion, if I could, 
on the resolution, as amended by the chairman's amendment.
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    Senator Johnson.  Second.
    The Chairman.  All in favor? [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  If I could, I would just like to ask 
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical 
and conforming changes. Without objection, so ordered.
    If I could, tomorrow at 2:00, General Allen is going to be 
here in a classified setting. He just returned today from 
Gaziantep. I think it is going to be an impactful hearing 
relative to the AUMF, and would urge people to attend.
    Without any further business, I want to thank everybody for 
organizing this way. And without objection, we stand adjourned. 
Thank you.


    [Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, February 26, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in Room 
S-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Barrasso, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, 
Udall, and Kaine.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  We will go ahead and call the meeting to 
order and thank those who are here. I know we need one more to 
actually conduct business, but I really appreciate people being 
here today. I know there is a lot happening, but the meeting is 
now coming to order.
    We have had some compelling hearings I know on the issue of 
modern slavery. We have worked very closely with Senator 
Menendez's office and others. We certainly appreciate all the 
effort that has taken place. But I really believe we have come 
to a place where we have a bill that is going to have a 
significant impact on the issue of people around the world 
being in bondage in modern slavery and being involved in sexual 
servitude.
    And we have done it in a way that is really a unique way of 
delivering this type of service through leveraging the private 
sector with U.S. dollars and other settlements two-to-one. And 
I think it is a way for us to actually establish metrics, get 
results, affirm best practices.
    And I am just really proud of our committee today and all 
those who have worked on it. I think this is a pragmatic 
approach. And I especially want to thank Senator Menendez, the 
ranking member, partner and friend, and his staff. Charlotte 
Oldham-Moore and Margaret Taylor really dug into the details, 
and we just greatly appreciate their efforts.
    I think this is a very big moment for the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. I really do. We are dealing with all kinds 
of other issues that involve conflict, that involve war, and 
yet in the midst of this, dealing with an issue that affects so 
many people so deeply. And I am really glad that we are here 
today, and hopefully we are getting ready to pass out a very 
important piece of legislation.
    And with that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
ranking member.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first 
of all, let me acknowledge your leadership on this issue, and 
your deep commitment to ending modern day human slavery, human 
trafficking in all its forms. There are a lot of things 
happening in the world that rivets the attention of this 
committee at any given time. And as your first major piece of 
legislation, it is the problems about--the focus that you have, 
and I appreciate your leadership. I am thrilled to have joined 
you in this effort.
    Ending human trafficking in all of its forms, whether 
forced labor, sexual exploitation, debt bondage, involuntary 
servitude, or the sale and exploitation of children, is one of 
the great moral challenges of our time. And I believe that we 
are stepping up to it in a very bold way. So I want to 
recognize all of the NGOs in civil society that have been doing 
great work for a long period of time. But I think this is going 
to be a tremendous boost in defeating what is a rather 
pervasive challenge in the world today.
    I appreciate you recognizing my staff. I hope it does not 
cause salary increases for me. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. If it is, I am going to revisit with you 
on the budget. But on a serious note, they have done great 
work, as have your staff. They worked together on this, and we 
are speaking with one voice and a strong vote.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. And, you know, there are very few 
times when we have legislation that is so personal and affects 
so many people, and this is a blight on our society. U.S. 
leadership matters. There are tremendous efforts, though, 
underway by NGOs, not only here, but around the world. And yet 
having this central focus on it no doubt will empower them to 
do even greater things, so I thank you.
    Are there any other members that wish to speak to this 
issue? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. I would like to--Senator Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Well, I just--Mr. Chairman, thank you. I 
just want to say thank you again to the staff that worked with 
us on some issues, too. So I appreciate the work and your 
willingness to move on this.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Thank you. I know today is 
Senator Kaine's birthday, so we do want to recognize him. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. So I think we have the ability with 
the number of the people here to go ahead and have amendments. 
And so, first of all, we have a manager's amendment that we 
worked very closely with Senator Cardin, Senator Flake, Senator 
Gardner, and Senator Shaheen. I would entertain a motion that 
we approve that by voice vote.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    Senator Flake. If I could speak to that for just a minute. 
I want to thank the chair, and the staff, and everyone on the 
Democrat and Republican side for working with us on a number of 
issues, and a lot of them have been put in, and some good 
language has come up in terms of GAO reports and whatnot. That 
is great.
    There are some things that I think are still not defined as 
well as we need to. If we are going to--if we are going to have 
a bill that hopes to end modern slavery, I think we have got to 
proceed with an understanding or a definition as to what that 
is. And I do have some concerns that there is a hyperbole and 
statements made about what it really is and what it is not, and 
I think that needs to be better defined before we get to the 
floor with this. And I hope to be able to work with the 
chairman and others as this proceeds to get a definition of 
peonage, slavery. They are not currently defined by U.S. law, 
and I think we are going to need a better definition if we move 
forward.
    So I thank the chairman for working on this, and I will go 
ahead and I will make the motion to go to the manager's 
amendment.
    Voice: Second.
    The Chairman.  Seconded. All in favor, signify by saying 
aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  It passes. My understanding is Senator Flake 
also has some amendments that he would like to offer in 
addition to the manager's amendment.
    Senator Flake. Yes, I would call up Flake's second degree 
amendment to Flake one.
    The Chairman.  Is there a--is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Would you like--would you like to speak to 
it?
    Senator Flake. Yes, just very briefly. This amendment would 
prohibit the End Slavery Foundation from expending Federal 
funds unless the act is reauthorized, and until the foundation 
reports to Congress on the progress that has been made on the 
goal of eliminating modern slavery. The underlying text 
authorizes the foundation for seven years, and we all know that 
programs which lapse in authorization often continue to receive 
appropriations. We want to make sure that we put sufficient 
guardrails around this, and make sure that it is actually 
achieving the goals that have been set out in the act.
    The Chairman.  Voice vote okay?
    Senator Flake. Yes.
    The Chairman.  All in favor of the Flake amendment? [A 
chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  That is passed. And you have a second 
amendment?
    Senator Flake. Yes, this is Flake second degree to Flake 
four. This would simply include--may I speak to it?
    The Chairman.  Sure.
    Senator Flake. Thank you. This is to simply include non-
binding language to say that we are not authorizing this 
initiative--or we are authorizing this initiative, but do not--
but we expect it will not paid for outside of the Budget 
Control Act.
    We just want to make sure that we live within the agreement 
that we have in the Budget Control Act. It is non-binding, but 
I think it is important to state that caps are there for a 
reason. Both the Administration and Congress, we cannot be 
complicit in violating that from year to year. So with that, I 
urge support for the amendment.
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having a 
manager's amendment and supported Senator Flake before. But 
this amendment was provided to members after midnight last 
night. I and my staff have not had time to review it, and its 
meaning is unclear. For me, that sets a bad precedent, and I 
would need more time to consider it since we intend to move it 
to the floor at some point in time. I intend to oppose the 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second to the Flake amendment?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Okay. And I understand a voice vote is 
acceptable?
    Senator Flake. Yes.
    The Chairman.  All in favor of the Flake amendment, say 
aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment fails. Okay, the nays have it.
    Are there any further amendments? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. The question before us then is the 
base bill, the motion to approve S. 552, the End Modern Slavery 
Initiative of 2015, as amended.
    All in favor will say aye. [A chorus ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  It carries. The ayes have it.
    This complete the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With that, without objection, the committee is adjourned. 
Thank you all very much.


    [Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 26, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:22 a.m., in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Flake, Gardner, 
Perdue, Barrasso, Menendez, Boxer, Cardin, Murphy, and Kaine.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman. Listen, we have got over 350 personnel that 
we are going to be able to promote and move along. And I want 
to thank the minority for their tremendous cooperation, along 
with the American Foreign Service Association who we have 
worked very closely with. Both sides have vetted these people, 
and I thank everybody for interrupting their day to cause this 
happen so the two-week period we are gone these people can go 
on about their lives.
    So with that, our outstanding, distinguished, great ranking 
member, I do not know if you have any comments that you would 
like to make.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    Senator Menendez. You know, Mr. Chairman, there is a 
Spanish saying, ``Ese huevo quiere sal,'' which means this egg 
wants a little salt on it. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. But thanks anyhow. Let me say that I am 
glad, and I am just doing this for the record because we have 
such an expansive audience here. I am glad that we are putting 
these lists through the committee because I am acutely aware of 
the damage and pain in delay in considering these lists can 
cause. I said it a year ago, and I will say it again today that 
these hardworking Foreign Service officers that we will vote on 
today deserve the recognition and promotions they have earned. 
And it is my hope that we can work with the full Senate 
leadership to make sure these lists are confirmed by the full 
Senate today before the upcoming recess.
    But let me make two quick points that I think--I feel 
compelled to make about the seven names that have been struck 
from the list. First, I understand that some of them are being 
nominated for these positions for the first time just this 
year, and that there are unresolved questions that could not be 
answered in a short timeframe. I understand that, and there is 
precedent in the committee for doing that.
    However, I would like to say that if we had some more 
warning about this business meeting and the desire to strike 
these names, we may have been able to facilitate answers to the 
questions and gotten them through. Now we will have to wait, 
and I just think that is unfortunate. My hope is that any 
outstanding questions can be resolved quickly and we can move 
them at the next business meeting.
    But there are other names that are struck from these lists 
that were also struck more than one at now the majority's 
request in the last Congress, and this brings me to my second 
point. These names have been known to us for some time, and I 
believe we have a responsibility to handle decisions about 
their promotions in a fair and timely way. And so, I will not 
drive the point any further other than to say we need to have a 
discussion and a review about those who are struck from the 
list because I think we--on this particular point we may have a 
different point of view on some of these individuals.
    The Chairman. Well, as always, and I would love for anybody 
else to make a comment certainly before anybody gets here and 
we have enough to vote. But I certainly as always will be glad 
to sit down and talk about it, and appreciate the comments, and 
again, people being here on short notice. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me just underscore the 
point that Senator Menendez made. First, we appreciate having 
these positions acted on at this time, so we want to move 
forward, and as I understand, some names have been stricken. I 
do not know the details about that because these are personnel 
issues, so we do not generally talk about them in a public 
setting.
    And I agree with Senator Menendez. If there are some 
concerns, particularly those who on the list for the first 
time, we need to resolve those concerns, and that is how we go 
about doing it. But if it has been more than once, it seems to 
me that we need to make a decision, and if necessary, have a 
closed session so that we understand the reasons, and that we 
can take collective action either to approve or not approve the 
position. But to just keep it in abeyance I do not think is 
fair to the person. And I do not know the circumstances here at 
all, so I would just urge us if it becomes a lengthy issue, let 
us resolve it one way or the other, but not just keep it open.
    The Chairman. Okay. I think that is fair, and more than 
glad to work with you towards that end. Any other comments? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman. Iran discussion? [No response.]
    The Chairman. Budget discussion? [No response.]
    The Chairman. East Asia?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, there are several people on 
this list from Colorado. I would congratulate them. I am happy 
to read their names if you would like. [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner [continuing.] Particularly related to 
Charles Jess of Colorado. I do appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to attend the event we held last night. It was a 
great event with our ambassadors from across East Asian 
nations, and certainly look forward to working with you to 
continue our relationship and build stronger relationships.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, since we have time----
    The Chairman. Let us talk about Cuba.
    Senator Menendez. [continuing.] Well, we do not have enough 
time to do that. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. Let me just say as we move to the budget 
debate shortly, I just hope the chairman talks--I have on my 
side--to some our colleagues about thinking about very serious 
foreign policy issues in the snapshot of a budget amendment.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. And, you know, I understand messaging as 
much as anybody else. I have been around a bit, you know. But 
some of these things may seem inconsequential to those who are 
offering it, and I am sure they feel very strongly about it. 
But they have resonance, and when it is not structured with the 
type of attention that this committee under your leadership 
this year and together in the past, has taken very difficult 
issues and structured it in a way that is thoughtful so that we 
have most of the time a united view on what our foreign policy 
should be in some very difficult places in the world. It is a 
challenge.
    And I hope some of our colleagues would just think about 
the greater good then the momentary message that can be 
achieved by some of these amendments. I have said that to 
several of my colleagues who are inclined to try to do 
something on our side, and I just hope that that is, you know, 
something that they really will consider because it does have 
meaning.
    The Chairman. Well, I could not agree more, and I do not 
know if anybody else wants to make a comment. But I think, you 
know, we have the Kirk amendment that is coming up. I have 
looked at it, and it looks to me like it is should a 100-zip 
kind of deal. I know you are not co-sponsoring. I am not co-
sponsoring. But do you agree with that, by the way, in looking 
at it?
    Senator Boxer.  What does it do?
    The Chairman. It just sets up a definite neutral reserve 
fund so that in the event there are violations in the JPOA or 
in the final agreement, sanctions can be put in place. It does 
not look like to me--it looks to me, again, a lot like the 
amendment yesterday that was put forth, you know, that you can 
almost take on voice. But I would love----
    Senator Boxer.  It sounds like it is----
    The Chairman. Hey, Tim. Sit over here with us. So we are 
almost there.
    Senator Menendez. You can sit there temporarily, Tim. You 
sit on this side over here. [Laughter.]
    Senator Kaine.  A rookie mistake.
    Senator Menendez. I understand Senator Murphy is on his 
way, too. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. Now, that is the ultimate southern 
gentleman.
    The Chairman. If somebody could get a photograph for the 
Atlanta Journal, I would appreciate it. [Laughter.]
    Voice.  If I could get Tim to cross the line.
    Senator Boxer. Are there any cameras out there to catch 
this moment in history?
    The Chairman. I think we are close. But do you agree with 
that, what I just said, though, about the----
    Senator Menendez. Well, look, even--you know, I love 
Senator Kirk---- [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. And we have worked extremely 
hard together. But even this, you know, I am sure it will 
receive a very significant vote, but it does not say have 
sanctions, but if there is a minor, you know, violation of the 
agreement, if there is a major violation of the agreement. It 
does not differentiate, and so----
    The Chairman. We may need to get him to amend that.
    Senator Menendez. I mean, I think--I am for sanctions if at 
the end of the day there are violations to the agreement. But I 
understand the difference between a rather insignificant 
violation of the agreement and a very significant one. So this 
is just by of example of the type of---- [Applause.]
    Senator Menendez. We have it, but, oh, my god, I am losing 
money---- [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Is there any more discussion on the matter 
before us?
    Voice. Hey, Corey, we have email. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Is there any more discussion?
    All in favor of the business that is before us----
    Senator Menendez. And, Mr. Chairman, the business before us 
is the foreign relations list of----
    The Chairman. Moving the foreign----
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. ----of candidates, Foreign 
Service officers, promotions.
    The Chairman. Not the Kirk amendment to the budget.
    Senator Menendez. Right, okay. I will second that.
    The Chairman. Okay. Everybody okay? [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.


    [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, April 14, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:49 p.m. in Room 
419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman 
of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Paul, Barrasso, 
Cardin, Boxer, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, 
and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman. This business meeting for the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. The only order of 
business today is S. 615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 
of 2015, and that bill is now the pending business of the 
committee.
    I want to start by thanking all the members of the 
committee for the tremendous amount of work that has been done 
over several months to get us where we are. And in any piece of 
legislation obviously there are things that members would like 
to see different, but I think we have reached a balance here 
that is very, very appropriate.
    I want to thank the former chairman and the former ranking 
member, Senator Bob Menendez, for his tremendous efforts on all 
things Iran, but certainly this piece of legislation. I cannot 
imagine a member being more constructive. And I want to say 
that to me what may occur today is the true reemergence of the 
Foreign Relations Committee becoming more than just a debating 
society, but a committee that takes up the significant work 
that we have before us around the world. And I want to say 
again to our former chairman and our former ranking member, 
there is no question that over the last two years you have 
helped bring us to this point where instead of debating things, 
we may well be taking up important legislation that will have a 
significant impact on the security of the Middle East and 
certainly of our citizens.
    I want to thank Tim Kaine for his incredible effort. Tim is 
someone who truly understands the role of the United States 
Senate and issues of this significance, and has been a stalwart 
to articulate more clearly than anyone else why it is important 
for us to take the role that I hope this legislation today will 
allow us to take.
    And then to Ranking Member Cardin, I do not know how many 
times we have talked on the phone over the last several days. I 
cannot thank you enough for your temperament, for your tone, 
for your seriousness on a very, very important issue, and I 
look forward to working with you on other significant issues. 
To be where we are today is a testament to the type of Senator 
you came here to be, and I want to thank you for that.
    Look, let us set the stage. In spite of what may be being 
said by buildings down the street on the other end of 
Pennsylvania, this legislation is exactly the congressional 
review that we have been working on from day one. And I want to 
thank everyone here for allowing this legislation to be in the 
form that it is in today with 100 percent of the integrity that 
we had hoped to be a part of this process embodied in this 
piece of legislation.
    What this legislation does--I think everyone understands 
that these Iran nuclear negotiations are incredibly important 
to the citizens that we represent. I think all of us would like 
to see a strong negotiated agreement that ensures that Iran 
does not get a nuclear weapons. But what this legislation does 
is allow us--Congress has been a partner in this. Congress, as 
we know, has passed four pieces of legislation since 2010 that 
most people credit for having brought Iran to the negotiating 
table.
    Many times, let us face it, this was not something that the 
administration favored, but Congress prevailed. And the 
sanctions that we have put in place are the sanctions that 
brought the Iranian economy down certainly a great deal, has 
certainly caused the inflation and the destabilizing effect 
that has caused them to want to be at the negotiating table.
    What we have before us today is a bill that forces the 
administration, before they are able to lift the sanctions that 
we collectively put in place that brought them to the table, it 
forces the administration to bring to us every detail if there 
happens to be a final agreement. Every detail. We have left 
timeframes in here we have worked through with the 
parliamentarian. We have worked through the House to make sure 
that the procedures are appropriate. I know that Ben and I will 
have a colloquy in a minute to further confirm that.
    But what this does, it means that the sanctions that have 
been put in place by this body, by the Senate and by the House, 
cannot be lifted--without the administration bringing to us 
every detail of the deal. And then the clock will start, and 
there will be a period of time that Congress--that Congress 
will have the ability to debate and decide whether Congress 
wants to move ahead with a resolution of approval or a 
resolution of disapproval. During that time, no congressional 
mandated sanctions can be lifted.
    After that process is over, there is a third process that 
is very important. I think everybody understands what has 
happened in North Korea where arrangements were made, but there 
was no follow-through. And a very important aspect, a third leg 
to this agreement, is that Congress stays involved if an 
agreement is reached, and if one is not disapproved, Congress 
stays involved. And every 90 days the administration has to 
certify that in every way Iran is in compliance. And if there 
are violations, within a 10-day period they have to give that 
to Congress so that we have the ability, if we wish, to quickly 
reapply the sanctions that if a deal is approved would be 
alleviated. So I think this puts Congress in its rightful role.
    People should know, and I think everyone understands, the 
sanctions that are being negotiated right now with Iran are the 
nuclear sanctions only. The sanctions relative to ballistic 
missile testing, they stay in place. The sanctions relative to 
terrorism, they stay in place. The sanctions relative to human 
rights, they stay in place. And so, today we are only focused 
on the nuclear piece, but I would say in the event over time 
these sanctions are lifted because a deal is approved and 
Congress chooses not to disapprove it, I would just say to 
everyone here, this bill gives us more reporting on terrorism 
than we have ever had, more reporting on ballistic missile 
testing than we have ever had, more reporting on human rights 
than we have ever had. And we will have that entire arsenal of 
sanctions that we put in place since 2010 to reapply in those 
areas if we feel like Iran is again doing things that are not 
in our national interests, and certainly not in the country's.
    So I want to thank again the ranking member. I want to 
thank everybody who has worked with us in this regard. I know 
that many people may have opening comments. But it has been a 
true pleasure to work with Senator Cardin and others, for us to 
be in the place that we are, with the entire integrity of the 
congressional review process that we started with, staying in 
place.
    And with that, I will turn it over to our ranking member, 
who worked with us to get this in a place that I hope many 
Democrats will be able to join in, and he did so valiantly. He 
did so toughly. But he did so with a temperament that allowed 
us to move along in a very productive way.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Well, Chairman Corker, first of all, thank 
you very much. I want to completely agree with you in regards 
to the role that Senator Menendez has played in us reaching 
this moment. I do not believe we would be here today, on the 
verge of reporting out, I hope, by a very strong vote on a 
congressional review of the Iranian accords that we hope will 
be presented to us in June, without him. And Senator Menendez 
enjoys the strong thanks for the incredible leadership he has 
given the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as its chairman 
and as ranking member. I can assure everyone here I am honored 
to be the ranking member. I did not want to become ranking 
member under these circumstances, and I hope that Senator 
Menendez's issues will be resolved very quickly.
    Mr. Chairman, I look at my position as working with you to 
achieve our mutual goals, and that is this Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee has an extremely important role to play, 
and we want to do that in the best interests of the United 
States. So sure, I represent the Democratic members, but in a 
broader sense I think we both represent all the members of the 
Senate in bringing as much unity as we possibly can to foreign 
policy in this country. So I look forward to working with you 
in that regard.
    It is clear to me that there is a strong common commitment 
in the Congress of the United States and in the White House to 
make sure Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state. That is 
our objective. That is a game changer for the Middle East. It 
is something that we cannot allow to occur. I think we all 
agree that the preferred course to achieve that objective is 
through diplomatic means, through the negotiations that are 
taking place, with a strong agreement that would prevent Iran 
from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
    Such an agreement would have to provide ample time before 
Iran could break out to a nuclear weapon so that if they do not 
comply with the agreement, we will know about those breaches 
and can take effective action to prevent Iran from becoming a 
nuclear weapons state. Bottom line, there is no disagreement in 
this committee or in the Congress that we cannot trust Iran, 
and the agreement must be able to ensure that Iran does not 
become a nuclear weapons state. I think we also will reach 
agreement today on an appropriate role for Congress in 
reviewing what we must do in that regard.
    And I start by saying thank you to Senator Corker, and 
thank you to Senator Menendez, and thank you to Senator Kaine 
for giving us the framework to achieve that. I agree with 
Senator Corker. The basic framework of the bill that we are 
working on today provided a way in which Congress, in a 
thoughtful and meaningful way, could weigh in and review any 
agreement reached between our negotiating partners in Iran in 
regards to their nuclear weapons. And secondly, it provided a 
means that we could use to get timely notice in the event there 
is a material breach so Congress could take appropriate action. 
Those two principals were in the original bill and they are 
still in there today, and I agree completely with those 
purposes, and said so well before this markup today.
    I am pleased, though, we were able to negotiate a manager's 
package that has broad support and input from many member of 
this committee, and I want to thank members on both sides of 
the aisle for their input into the manager's amendment. It 
reflects, I think, the best thoughts of all the members of the 
committee. It provides, I think, the right framework for the 
congressional review and potential action.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote from some language 
that is in the manager's amendment that, ``It is the sense of 
Congress that the sanctions regime imposed on Iran by Congress 
is primarily responsible for bringing Iran to the table to 
negotiate its nuclear program.'' We are the ones who imposed 
the sanctions, as you pointed out. ``These negotiations are 
critically important matters of national security and foreign 
policy for the United States and its closest allies. This 
legislation does not require a vote by Congress for the 
agreement to commence. This legislation provides for 
congressional review, including and appropriate for approval, 
disapproval, or no action on statutory sanctions relief under 
an agreement.''
    I just really want to point that out because people have 
asked why we are involved here. We have to be involved here. 
Only Congress can permanently change or modify the sanctions 
regime, which is clearly part of what the President is 
negotiating in regards to the Iran nuclear program.
    Secondly, let me point out that the manager's amendment, I 
think, has the appropriate role for Congress in regards to when 
we get the agreement and how we act on it. It is clear that we 
will only act after the administration has presented an 
agreement to us. That is when the clock starts. So we're 
providing an orderly way for our consideration. We will go in 
to the timeframe in a moment, but under the assumption that we 
are going to get the agreement on time, there would be an 
initial 30-day review period for Congress to review the 
agreement.
    We have checked that out. That gives our committee ample 
time to hold hearings, to do what is appropriate, and for 
Congress to take appropriate action. We do not know whether 
that will be no action, a resolution of approval, resolution of 
disapproval, a resolution dealing with sanctions. All of that 
is possible. No pre-judgment on that. We will wait until we 
receive the agreement, and we have our committee hearings, and 
determine the appropriate role for Congress. But there would be 
no action prior to receiving the agreement. It is also very 
clear that the April 2nd framework is not part of that type of 
a review process.
    The 30 days could be extended if there was action taken 
that required presidential approval during the period of the 
presidential review, and potential veto and veto overrides, the 
periods would be extended. No one can anticipate where we will 
end up on this, but it basically is a 30-day review process.
    I want to thank the chairman because we got into a big 
debate, and we may have an amendment being offered on this, so 
I will just cover it briefly now. We have eliminated from the 
original draft certain presidential certifications that were 
not related to the Iranian negotiations, and I think that was 
the right thing to do. This is a complicated enough agreement. 
We are not going to be able to solve all the problems with 
Iran. If we can prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons 
state, that is the objective of these agreements. Does Iran 
have other issues with the international community and us? You 
bet they do, and we are concerned about that.
    And I would just urge my colleagues to take a look at the 
manager's amendment because we have strengthened this bill as 
it relates to getting adequate information about their 
terrorist activities and their violations of human rights so 
that we have that information and can use that information as 
we see fit. So I believe the manager's amendment strengthens 
this bill as it relates to the other types of activities that 
are problematic to the United States that are caused by Iran, 
but does it in the right way without interfering. In fact, I 
would suggest that this bill strengthens the President's 
ability to negotiate in regards to the nuclear framework 
itself.
    And lastly, let me just say I think there is an amendment 
that is offered that makes it clear that the security of Israel 
and the survival of Israel is one of the paramount goals of 
this legislation. And I agree with that completely, and I am 
glad that we were able to add that to the manager's amendment. 
I thank Senator Rubio and I thank Senator Boxer for their 
leadership on that issue.
    I do want to particularly thank Senator Coons for his help 
in the shortening of the period, Senator Shaheen for her work 
on the framework of how we put this together, and all the 
members on both sides for their incredible work. I think this 
is a proud moment if we can get this type of legislation as to 
how Congress can really weigh in on this agreement. I think it 
is the right thing not only for Congress, but for the American 
people.
    The Chairman. Do you want to do the colloquy?
    Senator Cardin. Oh, yes. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I 
just want to make one point on some of the new text in the 
manager's substitute amendment, which has been agreed to 
between Senator Corker and myself, regarding the period of 
congressional review. The original bill mandated a 60-day 
period for congressional review during which time the President 
would not be able to provide statutory sanctions relief.
    In the new text, if the agreement is submitted by July 
10th, the congressional review would be 30 days, and during 
that period, the President would be unable to provide statutory 
sanctions relief. The new text then provides for a further 12 
days for the president to consider a veto of a resolution of 
disapproval, and 10 days for Congress to consider overriding a 
veto. The 10-day period for Congress to consider overriding a 
veto would begin the day after a presidential veto.
    The Chairman. That is absolutely my understanding, and I 
think it is your understanding that the time clock only begins 
when the President presents all of the materials for us to 
weigh in, including all of the classified annexes that the 
public will never see, but are important for all of us to see, 
and to be able to weigh in on prior to any sanctions being 
relieved. But that is my understanding.
    Senator Cardin. Well, I appreciate that, and you are 
correct. The President has to submit the agreement. The 
agreement is defined in the manager's amendment to include the 
relevant documents.
    The Chairman. And he submits after that period of time. All 
of our members should know because of the way Congress 
functions and non-functions during the period of August, there 
is a 60-day process that we revert back to. That is our 
understanding and certainly it is spelled out that way in the 
manager's amendment. But I want to make sure that we have an 
agreement, and I thank you for that.
    At this moment, I really think it is important for Senator 
Menendez, who has been such a champion not only on this piece 
of legislation, but regarding our mutual concerns with Iran. I 
would like to call on him to make some opening comments.
    Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me--
let me thank you for your gracious remarks, and I appreciate 
having worked with you on the legislation and your 
consultations with me on changes to the legislation, which I 
support. And I think this continuation of the bipartisanship 
that I tried to set out when I had the privilege of chairing 
the committee rises to the high calling of what the United 
States Senate is all about, and particularly upholds the 
significance of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as it 
relates to foreign policy and national security. So I want to 
thank you and congratulate you in that respect.
    I want to thank Senator Cardin, the ranking member, for his 
incredibly hard work in perfecting the legislation that brings 
us to what I hope will be a broad, strong bipartisan vote. And 
I could not think of anyone better, Ben, to take my place 
during this interim period. And I want to thank Senator Kaine, 
whose thoughtful input throughout the genesis of the 
legislation was incredibly helpful.
    In my view, the way to send a message to Tehran about our 
expectations is for Congress to put politics aside and pass the 
Corker-Menendez Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with unified, 
bipartisan action that underscores Congress' critical role in 
one of the highest priority, national security, nuclear 
nonproliferation challenges of our time. The fact is if the 
P5+1 and Iran ultimately achieve a comprehensive agreement by 
the June deadline, at the end of the day Congress must have 
oversight responsibility, and this legislation provides it.
    This bill establishes a managed process for congressional 
review and a framework for congressional oversight. Now, I 
differentiate between this agreement and others the 
administration has cited for exclusive executive action because 
of the congressionally-mandated sanctions that are law. And as 
the author of those sanctions, working with many others on this 
committee and beyond, I can tell you that we never envisioned a 
wholesale waiver of those sanctions without congressional input 
and action.
    My goal is one goal, and that is to make certain that Iran 
does not have the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon. 
And the best way to achieve that goal is with bipartisan 
support that strengthens the United States' hand in moving from 
a political framework to a comprehensive agreement and sets out 
expectations for Iranian compliance. So let us send a message 
to Tehran that sanctions relief is not a given, and certainly 
not a prize for signing on the dotted line. Iran must fully 
comply with all provisions of an agreement that effectively 
dismantles its nuclear weapons infrastructure and verifies 
compliance with every word of the deal.
    Now, I have many questions about the framework agreement, 
including, but not limited to, the divergent understanding of 
the agreement, the difference in what Iran can do with research 
on advanced centrifuges, the timing and pacing of sanctions 
relief, the ability to snap back sanctions if there are 
violations of the agreement, the lack of addressing the 
possible military dimensions of Iran's program, the degree of 
the IAEA's ability to have snap inspections--not regular 
inspections, snap inspections, among others. But that is all 
the more reason for Congress to have an in-depth oversight 
role.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
leadership. I thank the ranking member for his. And I urge a 
strong bipartisan vote on the chairman's mark.
    The Chairman. Are there additional opening comments?
    Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. If I could, I might want to go this way since 
we want to stay in balance here.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, again I want to 
join in with everyone and recognize your efforts on this. They 
have been Herculean to say the least.
    The reason this is so difficult is the fact that we are 
negotiating towards two different goals. Usually when people 
are negotiating, they are negotiating to get to a particular 
point. The United States and the world wants to negotiate to a 
point where the Iranians cannot now, cannot ever have a nuclear 
weapon. The Iranians are negotiating to get a very specific 
clear path forward to how they can get a nuclear weapon.
    Now, people talk about 10 years, 15 years. Look, this is a 
culture that has been around for five millennia, two and a half 
since they actually were the power in the world. Ten to 15 
years is nothing for them. Under the agreement that has been 
talked about, they patiently can put step--one foot in front of 
the other and get to where they want to go. And unfortunately, 
that leaves people that are going to be sitting in these chairs 
in the future to deal with that, and that has--that is what has 
made this so difficult.
    Having said all that, I think there are steps that we can 
take at this point to at least slow it down. And who knows, 
maybe the Iranian people will overthrow what they are burdened 
with with their government, and decide that they want to be 
reasonable actors in the world, and at some point in time get 
to the point where they do abandon their nuclear ambitions.
    This agreement that we are talking about right now does not 
get them to the point where they are abandoning their nuclear 
ambitions because it would be very simple if they wanted to. 
They just destroy all their infrastructure, abandon it 
completely, and we move on. That is not what we are talking 
about here. Having said all that, there is some good stuff in 
here that I think we are going to have to get on board with. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. If I could, just to clarify, I think the 
comments you are making about the agreement, you are talking 
about the agreement that is being negotiated between the P5+1, 
not today's agreement.
    Senator Risch. Not this agreement.
    The Chairman. Today's agreement is just putting in place a 
structure for us to be able to deal with that once it is 
presented. And hopefully by giving us a seat at the--not at the 
negotiating table, but to be able to weigh in, a way to 
influence it to a better place.
    Senator Risch. Well said, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cardin. And, Mr. Chairman, could I just speak on 
that point? I think it is critically important that we 
underscore that because we are going to have strong bipartisan 
support for this agreement, for this review process. There may 
be different views on what has been negotiated to date, and I 
think it is very clear that this vote on the review process is 
not at all a reflection on how members feel on the underlying 
negotiations. And quite frankly, I am just going to speak for 
myself, I want to see the agreement before I comment on the 
agreement. It is still a process being negotiated.
    I do want to acknowledge the President's success in keeping 
the framework with Iran intact during these negotiating 
periods, his ability to get negotiating partners in unity and 
staying in unity, and keeping the sanction regime in place when 
many of us thought when the first framework was announced that 
we would not be able to do that. So I think we will reserve 
judgment on the merits at a different point, but right now I 
hope we can focus on the framework for our review.
    The Chairman. Someone on this side? Senator Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. I really do appreciate 
the very hard work that you, Mr. Chairman, did along with our 
ranking member, Senator Menendez, and so many others--Senator 
Kaine. I do not mean to slight anyone. So many people were 
involved in this. And to me, it is very, very important.
    I believe this bill has been changed from a point at which 
I did not support it to a point in which I can. And it is 
because I believe the former bill would have disrupted and 
upended the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. And 
I believe this new bill will not do that.
    Now, I have received assurances today--all morning I was on 
the phone with experts saying do you feel that if we vote for 
this bill we will upend negotiations, and the answer came back 
in a very straightforward way, no, this bill will not do that. 
And so, I am very pleased.
    Now, the reason for that is there is no longer language in 
the bill tying extraneous issues to the agreement. Now, we may 
have an amendment to do that, and everyone has a right to their 
opinion. My own view, that would be a deal breaker because we 
know how many problems we face with Iran. We could count the 
ways. We would be here all day. But we are trying to take care 
of one of these problems today, so I would urge colleagues to 
refrain from trying to solve every problem with Iran. There are 
years' worth of mistrust, years' worth of problems, years' 
worth of terrorism, and we are still dealing with them, and we 
will still deal with them, and there is language in there that 
states that we will still deal with them. But let us not tie it 
to this legislation.
    Also I am pleased that what is highlighted in this is a 
section that says we will not be voting on the final deal, if 
there is one, until after it is concluded. I think those are 
very important, and I do appreciate Senators Corker and Cardin 
accepting language that I wrote reaffirming the United States' 
commitment to Israel's security and its right to exist. We all 
feel that way, every one of us. I am proud that it is in there.
    And I also am glad that the language I wrote with Senator 
Schatz on expedited procedures, should there be a breakout so 
that we can immediately go onto the floor of the United States 
Senate, no filibuster allowed, and add back sanctions or do 
other things that are--everything will be on the table if there 
is a breakout. So in its new form, the bill clears, I think, a 
very strong path forward for Congress to vote up or down on 
sanctions that it imposed. That is the way I view the bill. I 
view the bill a vote on sanctions that we imposed.
    Now, I want to be clear because, you know, I always am 
straight from the heart, straight from the shoulder. If this 
bill is altered in ways that threaten this once-in-a-lifetime 
opportunity to deal with a looming crisis, I will use every 
tool at my disposal to stop that from happening. This is just 
too important.
    So I want to thank not only the leaders of this committee, 
and that does include Senator Menendez if I failed to mention 
him before, but also this administration for its extraordinary 
efforts in putting together a framework addressing Iran's 
nuclear future. And I looked at the framework, and what I can 
say about it is it does call for intrusive inspections, not 
only of Iran's nuclear facilities, but of the supply chain. 
That is critical and an actual rollback of nuclear 
capabilities. This is not a freeze. This is a rollback.
    So I for one have positive views about the framework, and 
literally pray that the progress will continue because as I 
look at the alternative, to me--did you plan that? [Laughter.]
    Senator Boxer. As I look at the alternative to this 
negotiation, this ongoing negotiation, it is frightening to the 
American people. They do not want another war. We had a 
colleague on the other side of the aisle actually call for 
bombing Iran now, and I fear that there are a lot more than one 
that feels this way. And I think by taking control--this 
committee taking control of this process, Mr. Chairman, I think 
it is the best thing we can do.
    The very last point, I hope people read the letter we got 
from 50 leaders, bipartisan, eight administrations, five 
Republican administrations and three Democratic 
administrations, urging us not to take any action to derail the 
ongoing negotiations. And I have to tell you, they are smart 
people. They know what they are talking about. And that is why 
I was very, very concerned.
    Now, frankly, if I was in the chair, which I am not, I 
would probably start off by holding hearings and call up all 
those experts and look at the framework before we went to 
today's markup. But we are where we are, and I feel good that 
we have moved to a place that does not threaten these ongoing 
negotiations. And I thank everyone again for their effort.
    The Chairman. Thank you. If I could, I want to move to 
Senator Rubio. But I just want to clarify again, it is my 
understanding that no one is discussing waiting to vote on this 
legislation after it comes out of committee on the floor, that 
we are ready to vote on the floor. You were referring voting on 
the resolution for approval or disapproval----
    Senator Boxer. Correct.

    The Chairman [continuing.] After the administration 
actually presents us a bill. So we are clearing the way for a 
strong vote on the floor if we pass this out today. Senator----
    Senator Boxer. Well, if I could say what I meant?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Boxer. There may be some horrible amendments that 
are offered on the floor that to me these amendments that could 
be offered on the floor, which would destroy this very delicate 
balance that you two have achieved. And I wanted to put it out 
there that I am not going to sit back and say, go for it. I am 
not. I am going to use every tool at my disposal to keep it the 
way it is because, I mean, there is no such thing as 
perfection, but I think the two of you have struck just the 
right balance. I want to protect that on the floor when this 
comes up.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. Senator Rubio, who has 
contributed heavily, especially on the issues relative to 
Israel, and I want to thank him so much for his contribution 
and constructive efforts in that regard.
    Senator Rubio. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
the ranking member for your cooperation and your help on this 
issue, and for Senator Boxer who as well had a second degree 
amendment on this issue. We were able to work together.
    But I do want to say that I am even more concerned about 
not simply destroying the delicate balance of this bill. I am 
concerned about the destruction of Israel, and I will tell you 
why I am concerned about the destruction of Israel. In July of 
2014, Ayatollah Khamenei tweeted, ``This barbaric, wolf-like, 
and infanticidal regime of Israel''--hashtag Israel by the 
way--``which spares no crime, has no cure but to be 
annihilated.''
    In November of 2014, the Supreme Leader's Twitter account 
posted this. It is a chart showing nine questions about the 
elimination of Israel. ``Why should the Zionist regime be 
eliminated? During its 66 years of life so far, the fake 
Zionist regime has tried to realize its goal by means of 
infanticide, homicide, violence, and iron fists, while it 
boasts about it blatantly.'' It goes on to say--he calls for 
some sort of referendum where the Jews cannot participate, and 
they will have to go back to their country, whatever that 
means. ``But until a referendum is held, how should Israel be 
confronted? Up until the day when this homicidal and 
infanticidal regime is eliminated through a referendum, 
powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance is the 
cure of this ruinous regime. The only means of confronting a 
regime which commits crimes beyond one's thought in imagination 
is a resolute and armed confrontation.'' Here's another quote 
from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. ``It is the mission of the Islamic 
Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.''
    I think at some point when someone keeps saying they want 
to destroy you, you should take them seriously. And our concern 
here, and what I want to do is I wanted there to be an 
amendment on this where the President would have to certify to 
Congress that Iran's leaders have publicly accepted Israel's 
right to exist, or at a minimum that whatever deal we are 
agreeing to here does not put the existence of Israel, not to 
mention its security, on unstable ground.
    Now, I appreciate that there have been changes to the bill 
that, ``It is the sense of the Congress that the President 
should determine the agreement in no way compromises the 
commitment of the United States to Israel's security, nor its 
support for Israel's right to exist.'' I think that is better 
than not having it in there at all.
    But this an issue we are going to have to talk about on the 
floor as we move forward beyond this place today, because while 
we are concerned no doubt about the national security of the 
United States and the implications of a nuclear Iran, that is 
also, by the way, moving forward on ballistic missiles. And you 
do not build ballistic missiles because you want to do some 
fancy fireworks show. You build ballistic missiles because you 
want to put a nuclear warhead on it. And as they move forward 
on this program, not only does that pose a risk to the United 
States ultimately, it poses an immediate risk to Israel. You 
want to know how I know that? Because the Supreme Leader has 
said it himself repeatedly.
    And so, I appreciate the work and the accommodations that 
you have made to include this language. It is certainly better 
than not having it at all. This is an important debate for us 
to have. And I also appreciate, by the way, that we added in 
the ``sense of the Congress that United States' sanctions on 
Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles 
will remain in place under an agreement.'' I thought that was 
important. But thank you for allowing me to work with you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not repeat 
all of the eloquent statements that have been made. But I do 
want to reiterate what has been said about the leadership from 
you, Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, and Senator Kaine, 
relative to getting an agreement on this legislation, because I 
think, as you have said, it is not only important to the future 
of the Foreign Relations Committee and the very important work 
that we should be doing, but I think it also sends a very 
important signal to the people of this country that we can work 
together on big issues to address common problems that face the 
country, and we should be doing that as often as possible in 
the future.
    So I just want to congratulate you again for the work that 
you have done, and I do intend to support this legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the chairman 
and the people who have worked on this agreement. I understand 
it has been a tough row to hoe, and I realize your challenge in 
trying to accomplish creating a piece of legislation that could 
get bipartisan support and overcome a threatened presidential 
veto. So I understand what you have been working with here. I 
understand the challenge.
    I did offer a number of amendments to provide clarity. Now, 
if we have reached agreement and we can take this to the floor 
of the Senate, I will withhold offering those amendments during 
this markup. But I do want to talk about what this piece of 
legislation is and what it is not, provide that type of 
clarity.
    You said it creates a rightful role of Congress. Well, it 
creates a role, no doubt about that, and right now we have no 
role. So I would rather have a role than no role whatsoever 
because this administration has pretty well bypassed Congress 
from the standpoint of negotiating this agreement. And I 
realize it is the executive, the Commander-in-Chief, that has 
to negotiate this. But this is a role. It is congressional 
review, potentially congressional oversight, but it is not 
advice and consent.
    It is a long way from advice and consent. From my 
standpoint, I think this agreement that President Obama is 
negotiating certainly rises to the level of a treaty, and there 
is no set criteria for what a treaty is. There are 
considerations, and the U.S. State Department's own Foreign 
Affairs Manual lists those considerations, and one of them is 
the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks 
affecting the Nation as a whole. I think this agreement affects 
and involves the commitments and risk affecting this Nation. 
The third consideration, whether the agreement can be given 
effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the 
Congress. I think that applies.
    So from my standpoint, what President Obama is doing on 
behalf of America is a treaty, and according to the 
Constitution, treaties should be subjected to the advice and 
consent of the Senate. Now, that would what mean if we were 
really doing--engaged in our role of advice and consent, that 
requires 67 senators to affirmatively approve of this deal. 
That is not what is going to happen here. We will not have 67 
senators approving of this deal. That is not what this bill is 
going to do.
    Now, there are basically three types of international 
agreements. There is a treaty that requires the advice and 
consent. There is also congressional executive agreements. Now, 
if you have congressional executive agreement subject to 
regular order, well, that would be subject to a filibuster, so 
in that case you would need 60 senators affirmatively approving 
of that agreement. And that is still a pretty high hurdle.
    Now, there potentially could be congressional executive 
agreements under expedited procedures, would not allow 
filibuster. That would then require 50 senators as well as a 
majority in the House. Both the congressional executive 
agreements would require a majority of the House affirmatively 
approving the agreement. In other words, allowing the American 
people to have a say in an agreement that involves commitments 
or risks affecting the Nation as a whole through their elected 
representatives.
    Now, what this bill does, it kind of turns the advice and 
consent on its head because it basically allows for a vote of 
disapproval. In order for that vote of disapproval to actually 
have an effect of potentially stopping a really bad deal that 
involves commitments or risks affecting the Nation as a whole, 
well, if it is not vetoed, that would require 60 senators 
voting for disapproval, which means 41 senators could approve 
this deal and we would not have that vote of approval. Now, if 
that vote of disapproval is vetoed by the President, we would 
need to overcome that veto with 67 senators, which means 34 
senators would be required to approve this deal.
    So, again, this piece of legislation, which, again, I 
appreciate the fact that at least this gives us a role. It is 
an incredibly limited role. It is a role with very little 
teeth. It is a far cry from advice and consent of 67 senators 
voting in the affirmative that this a good deal for America. I 
still--it is beyond me why Democrats simply will not agree to 
the fact that more than one person should actually be able to 
evaluate whether this is a good deal or not. Right now the way 
it is, there is one person, the President of the United States. 
President Obama is going to decide for America that this is a 
good deal or a bad deal.
    I believe the American people should be involved in that 
decision through their elected representatives. I believe this 
agreement that President Obama is negotiating rises to the 
level of a treaty. I believe we should be providing that advice 
and consent. I believe we should be affirmatively approving 
this thing with 67 votes, but, in fact, it is going to be this 
piece of legislation.
    So, again, I have made my point. I think I have provided 
clarity, and I will support this as long as basically the deal 
that has been struck is approved here. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate the comments. And, you 
know, if I could wave a wand or pigs begin to fly, we could 
turn this into the type of agreement that has been discussed, 
but I will say this. The administration, as you know in the 
previous hearing we had, has been fighting strongly against 
this. Secretary Kerry was fighting against this earlier today. 
I know they have relented because of what they believe to be 
the outcome here. But I believe this is going to be an 
important role, and especially the compliance pieces that come 
afterward, a very significant thing that did not occur under 
the North Korean agreement, and gives us significant teeth if a 
deal is achieved. But I want to thank you for your comments.
    Senator Johnson. And, again, and I agree with that, and I 
appreciate that, which is why I will vote this out of 
committee.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we will 
convince any administration, Democrat or Republican, that 
Congress should have any role in anything that they do. We 
understand that. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. That is a given. But I just want to assure 
you that in my conversations with the administration, it has 
been a very positive conversation over the last 10 days looking 
for a way that they could resolve the concerns that they had in 
a genuine way. So I just want it to be clear that I think the 
administration has been very open about trying to get where we 
are today, and I just thank you for allowing us to have that 
open process.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons, who also has been incredibly 
constructive. And we made our first trip--your first trip to 
Afghanistan together, and I appreciate your significant input 
on the committee.
    Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Chairman Corker and Ranking 
Member. Thank you for the clear-eyed and the tough way in which 
you have negotiated this compromise that is in front of us this 
afternoon. We have a broad and shared common goal, which is to 
prevent a nuclear capable Iran. The only question in front of 
us is what role will this Congress and this committee play in 
important foreign policy decisions, and, in particular, in the 
consideration of a deal with Iran and the P5+1 partners, should 
there be one.
    And so, I want to thank Senator Menendez for his leadership 
of this committee in his role as ranking member in laying a lot 
of the groundwork for this, Senator Kaine for persistently 
raising on a bipartisan basis that Congress should have a role. 
And I want to thank you for including in this package, this 
compromise, two amendments I filed a week ago. And I look 
forward to supporting it and hopefully to our moving it out 
today with a strong bipartisan vote.
    But we have a simple question about which path forward 
today this committee will take. We can by passing this package 
ensure that in the event of a deal with Iran, Congress has a 
constructive and a defined role to play, an opportunity to 
review the deal and, as you have said, to stay engaged in 
oversight, or we can reject it and expose a potential deal with 
Iran to messy, endless, unpredictably timed attempts from 
Congress to prevent that from being implemented. We can embrace 
this compromise and thus help our diplomats and our negotiators 
by presenting a unified position and a reasonable process for 
congressional review, or we can reject it and hurt our 
diplomats and negotiators by creating another partisan fiasco 
and sending mixed messages to the world.
    It is my hope that we will not reject this agreement. By 
doing so, we would once again have this committee serve as a 
minor speed bump as this administration and future 
administrations proceed to make American foreign policy largely 
unrestrained. We can enact this. We can pass this out of 
committee today and reassert that the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee has an important role to play in our Nation foreign 
policy decisions. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis we 
will do just that and take the reasoned and responsible path 
forward. And thank you to both of you for making this possible.
    The Chairman. Senator Flake, who has been so constructive 
throughout this from the very beginning. Thank you so much.
    Senator Flake. I appreciate that, and in the interest of 
voting on this before the administration submits the final 
agreement, I will yield. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Any other opening comments? Senator Udall?
    Senator Udall. I agree with the thrust of what Senator 
Flake has said, and I just want to say very briefly--I will not 
take all my time here. But I think this committee and what 
Chairman Corker, and the ranking member, and Senator Menendez, 
and the others that have worked on this have done is has been 
incredibly important because Arthur Vandenberg used to use the 
phrase ``Politics stop at the water's edge,'' which is the best 
tradition I believe of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
And I think that is what we have seen today with you, Chairman 
Corker, and Ranking Member Cardin, and Senator Menendez, 
everybody working together to try to find a way through this. 
And so, I just congratulate you on doing that.
    I think, Chairman Corker, you had incredible restraint in 
not getting on that letter that was sent to the Ayatollah, and 
I think once again I would just pat you on the back for that 
because I think once again that is in the tradition of this 
committee trying to do the best bipartisan foreign policy it 
can.
    The one other thing I want to do is, and it is behind the 
scenes. This agreement that the administration is working on 
has had a lot to do with the National Laboratory Secretary 
Moniz talked about to us earlier. We have two of the three 
national security labs in New Mexico. We cannot talk now about 
all the great things those scientists have done and the 
contributions they have made, but they are really on top of 
these nuclear enterprise issues. And I know the story will come 
out eventually how important that is. And I would ask that the 
Washington Post editorial by Moniz be put in the record at this 
point.
    Thank you all for your work again.


    [The information referred to above can be found at the end 
of this transcript.]


    The Chairman. Thank you, and I have visited both of those 
labs with you, as a matter of fact. And certainly they play an 
incredible role in our national security as does the Oak Ridge 
Lab in Tennessee in cooperation with them on these issues.
    So any other comments? Senator Kaine, yes, sir.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all committee 
members. I strongly supported the beginning of the negotiation 
with Iran when President Obama announced it in November of 
2013, and really viewed it as the fruition of your efforts. I 
was not in the Senate when the sanctions regime were passed, 
and so to those of you who were, the economic realities of that 
regime opened up an opportunity, and our President did what we 
would want the President to do, to seek a diplomatic answer to 
a very difficult question.
    I also have a number of questions about the framework of 
the deal that was announced on April 2nd, but see much in that 
framework that I feel positively about. The rollback of the 
enriched uranium stockpile from 10,000 kilograms to 300 is 
massive, and the agreement of Iran, at least in the framework, 
to participate in the IAEA as an additional protocol for 
inspection, also significant.
    So I am pro-diplomacy, and I see positives in the 
framework, but I have been strongly pro the need for 
congressional approval. There has been some suggestion that if 
you think Congress needs to approve this you are anti-
diplomacy. That is ridiculous. There has even been some 
suggestion if you think Congress needs to approve this, you are 
pro war. That is offensive. We have a role under Article 2, and 
I actually think that congressional approval in this instance 
under the framework that is now before us is necessary, 
helpful, and what the American public demands and deserves. It 
is necessary because at the core this is a negotiation about 
what must Iran do to get out from under a congressional 
sanctions regime, so Congress will be involved.
    It is helpful because since Congress will be involved, the 
only question is will that involvement be helpful and orderly, 
or will it be under free-for-all rules. Much better for us, 
much better for the administration, much better for the P5+1, 
much better for Iran that we are asking to make concessions, 
big concessions, for them to see a process that is orderly and 
constructive.
    And finally, it is something that the American public, our 
role, they really deserve it. I have been talking to Virginians 
about this now for many months, and then I have recently--more 
recently seen some polling that seems kind of odd if you look 
at it, but it does make sense. The American public, just as we 
do, is deeply concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapons 
program. The American public, just as we are, really hopes that 
we will find a diplomatic answer to that problem if we can. 
They prefer diplomacy over war just like we all do.
    The American public is deeply skeptical, just like we are, 
about Iran's intentions. Will Iran comply with an agreement? 
The American public overwhelmingly wants Congress to approve a 
deal rather than the President just to announce a deal. Focus 
on that one for a minute. Why do my constituents and yours want 
a deal to have to be approved by Congress? It is not out of 
disrespect for the President, and it is not because they love 
Congress. Let me share with you what they think about Congress. 
It is not exactly great.
    They are so concerned about the magnitude of this deal that 
they will feel more comfortable if both the executive and the 
legislature take a look and say this is in the best interests 
of the Nation. This is why people get a second opinion if they 
hear from a doctor something they do not like. The American 
public knows this is big. They will feel more comfortable if it 
is both the executive and the legislature reviewing it.
    So that is why I am strongly in support of this, and I want 
to thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, all 
the colleagues, and the White House for weighing in here at the 
end so that we could find a path forward. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you to you and the ranking member, as well as the White House 
for bringing, I think, this incredibly productive compromise 
before us today.
    You know, I have been of like mind with Senator Boxer. I 
have believed that this has been a largely unnecessary endeavor 
in that the legislation that we are debating today does not 
really reserve for Congress any power that we do not already 
have. We had the ability before this debate to be able to 
review this agreement once it is submitted to Congress and to 
be able to take away from the President the power to waive 
sanctions. And after the passage of this bill, we still have 
that power.
    And so, all along my concern has simply been whether we are 
engaging in an effort that is going to make it less likely 
rather than more likely that we are going to get a deal to 
review. I reserve the right to be able to weigh in that 
agreement. I just want to make sure that we are not taking any 
steps that lessen the chances that we will be able to conduct 
that oversight when the time is appropriate.
    And I would just reiterate what we have heard today from 
the administration. I think we have heard very clearly that the 
changes that have been made over the past 24 to 48 hours 
essentially make this legislation benign as it relates to the 
negotiations, that there is a belief that with these changes--
the shortened timeframe, the removal of the terrorist 
certification--that this legislation, the passage of it, is not 
going to effect the negotiations or the ability for us as a 
body to see the final agreement. So I am happy to support it.
    My final comment is just this one, and it builds frankly 
off of a comment from Senator Kaine. I do worry about a double 
standard of oversight in this Congress, and I do not worry 
about it when it comes to Senator Kaine because he was right 
there at the beginning saying that we should oversee the 
President's proposed military action in the Middle East. But we 
have a constitutional duty to declare war, and we have been in 
this committee now for about four months and have not taken any 
progress to fulfill what is our constitutional obligation to 
oversee war.
    I would argue in a differential position to Senator Johnson 
that we do not have a constitutional obligation here, and we 
frankly do not even have the ability to weigh in until after we 
see a final agreement. And so, I just do not want to be in a 
situation where we have a higher standard of oversight on 
diplomacy than we have for war.
    And so, I am glad to support this compromise moving 
forward. I think it will provide for a useful framework for the 
review of this agreement should it be entered into. But I want 
to make sure that this committee moving forward is just as 
vigorous in its oversight over war making powers as it is over 
diplomacy. I do not think is an attack on diplomacy, but I am 
hopeful that we will show some consistency in the weeks and 
months to come.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I do want to--I have to say this. 
I apologize, but I think the reason the administration in the 
last two hours has chosen this path is that the number of 
senators that they realized were going to support this 
legislation. So anyway, I have a 180-degree different view of 
what has happened over the last couple of hours, but I 
appreciate your comments.
    Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we 
cannot praise you enough for the way that you are conducting 
this committee. I think this is really in the best tradition of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the way that people 
might understand it to be, but oftentimes it is not. And I 
thank you, Senator Cardin, for your excellent work in helping 
to create a bridge that has brought us to this moment.
    But I also want to thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine 
for their work in ensuring that there would be a protection of 
congressional prerogatives, especially in an area where the 
sanctions were actually a congressional idea. It originated 
here, and to a very large extent that is why the Iranians have 
come to the table. So it is all together fitting and 
appropriate that we are at this moment, and that there is going 
to be an assertion of this congressional prerogative to oversee 
such an important matter. So we congratulate all of you. And by 
the way, every member of the committee who participated in this 
process.
    There is no more important subject for the Congress to have 
to deal with. The IAEA is perhaps the least well-known, most 
important institution on the planet. That is what we are going 
to be debating over the next four or five months, the role that 
the IAEA can play in avoiding a dramatic escalation of nuclear 
weapons proliferation in the Middle East that we have avoided 
for 70 years. And so, it is going to be critical for the 
Senate, for the House to be able to determine the adequacy of 
the inspections regime. The funding made available to ensure 
that the IAEA can be the policeman on the beat, can be the 
protector against a compromise of a civilian nuclear program 
that in the wrong hands can turn into a nuclear bomb factory. 
That is what this is all about.
    That is why the Israelis are looking at this so closely. It 
is why the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Turks are all looking at 
this one issue so closely, because if we get it wrong, it is 
going to lead to the escalation that we have awarded over all 
of these decades.
    And so, this is a big moment, and I think this committee 
has handled this issue very responsibly. And I think to a 
certain extent, just listening to expert opinion, I think there 
is kind of a surprise that some people have had with regard to 
the specificity in the agreement, which Senator Kerry and 
Senator Moniz--Secretary Moniz and President Obama have brought 
back to America. And it should give us some hope that an 
agreement can be reached that accomplishes all of those goals.
    But it is also appropriate for this committee, for the 
Senate, to advise and consent, to have a role in conducting the 
hearings and hearing the evidence, and the making the decision 
because a lot of the rest of the history of the 21st century is 
going to actually ride on how this agreement is, in fact, 
written and enforced.
    And so, I keep coming back to thanking you for the way in 
which you are conducting it. It is the appropriate role for 
this committee and for the Senate. And I cannot praise Senator 
Kaine, Menendez, Cardin, and you, Mr. Chairman, enough for the 
incredible work which you have done. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Are there anymore opening 
comments? [No response.]
    The Chairman. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion that 
we consider the manager's amendment by roll call vote.
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman. Moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman? At the appropriate time, I 
would like to make a comment with regard with what we 
incorporated in the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman. Actually I think you can go ahead and do that 
now. That would be fine. Thank you. Thank you for your 
involvement in this and making this bill better as it is today.
    Senator Isakson. I just want to thank Chairman Corker and 
Ranking Member Cardin for their cooperation today. As many of 
you will remember, for five years I have worked to see to it 
that the 44 living Americans who were hostages in Iran in 1979 
are compensated for their loss and their time. When we 
negotiated the Algerian Accords to release those people, at 
that time is was 52 living people. We specifically negotiated 
away their ability to get compensation from the Iranian 
government.
    I have a bill which I offered as an amendment which I will 
withdraw for reasons that I understand that would allow us to 
collect compensation from the Iranian sanctions money, which is 
available and accessible, to compensate each one of those 
remaining 44 citizens who are still alive today. The chairman 
and the ranking member asked me to withdraw the amendment 
because it is not appropriate given the nature of the framework 
of the deal, and I agree with that. But you were both gracious 
enough to include it in the manager's amendment.
    I appreciate that very much and appreciate Chairman 
Corker's willingness to, at a time in the near future, which 
hopefully will be the immediate future, to allow the 
legislation to come before the committee. We owe those 
Americans everything. They were captive and tortured and beaten 
for 444 days. They are the only American civilians ever kept in 
captivity that never got some sort of compensation back from 
their captors and their tormentors, and I want to see to it 
that that happens.
    But I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
everything they have done to allow that and put that in the 
manager's amendment. And I withdraw my other amendment.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and thank you for your steadfast 
support of these families with everything they have gone 
through. Is there any member that would like to offer an 
amendment to the manager's package?
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
call up Barrasso amendment to the manager's amendment. This 
restores the language from the underlying base bill on the 
terrorism certification. It is simple. It is straightforward. 
It just reestablishes the requirement that the President 
certify Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act 
of terrorism against the United States or a United States 
person anywhere in the world.
    This was in the original piece of legislation. It is the 
bill that had significant bipartisan support, bipartisan co-
sponsorship. And Iran has been designated by the United States 
as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. I think it is 
critical for the President to make this certification to 
Congress and to the American people we are serious about our 
national security. I think it is important that the committee 
clearly state that we will not tolerate terrorism against our 
Nation.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and if I could just respond. First 
of all, I want to thank the Senator for the way he has 
conducted himself and certainly raising this issue. And I just 
would like for the audience and the world to know, this was a 
request by Senator Menendez actually that this initially be put 
in the bill. It is very difficult for me to understand why a 
certification like this would not easily be made, candidly. We 
have more information about terrorism in this bill than we have 
ever had before.
    And my guess is if Iran attempted terrorism against an 
American, they not only would have sanctions, but likely 
missiles and bombs. So I do not know why this could not be 
agreed to, but it was true that the administration did not want 
to have other issues not relevant to the nuclear deal in this. 
I have agreed to that, and while I support your amendment and 
support the base bill as it was before, I think the senator 
knows that I will oppose it. And I think I understand this 
creates problems for the balance, if you will, that we have 
today with that.
    The ranking member?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me explain. 
First of all, I agree with the chairman. I know that the 
sponsor of this amendment is well intended. We all want to see 
Iran end its terrorism influence in many regions of the world 
that are very, very troubling to world stability. It is a major 
continuing problem. So we agree completely with the intent of 
this amendment.
    I disagree with the chairman, though, about the impact of 
this amendment. This amendment would have had the unintended 
consequence of, I think, defeating any possibility for 
diplomacy, and let me explain why. The President would not be 
able to make this certification. Because he could not make the 
certification, there would be an expedited process for 
sanctions against Iran. And, therefore, it would be totally 
contrary to what is being negotiated today in regards to the 
nuclear nonproliferation obligations of Iran related to what 
they will do to give up their nuclear weapons in regards to 
sanctions that were imposed because they violated their nuclear 
proliferation obligations.
    There are separate sanctions in regards to terrorism, 
ballistic missiles, and human rights. And the manager's 
amendment makes it clear that nothing in the negotiations 
affect those sanction regimes. So we have that tool in place, 
but it is not the sanctions that were imposed in regards to the 
nuclear proliferation discussions. So, therefore, if this 
became a part of the bill, it would very likely be used as a 
reason to say that diplomacy cannot work because the President 
cannot make those certifications, cannot give the relief that 
is being negotiated. And the U.S. would be blamed for the ends 
of negotiations, putting Iran actually in a stronger position 
internationally than they are today. I know that is not Senator 
Barrasso's intent, but I think that is the consequence.
    Let me, though, point out Senator Menendez in the original 
bill included very strong report language on the terrorism 
activities of Iran that must be submitted to Congress on a 
periodic basis. That language is not only included in the 
manager's amendment, but strengthened in the manager's 
amendment. We have also included other language stating that, 
``The President must submit all actions, including 
international fora being taken by the United States to stop 
counter condemn acts by Iran to directly or indirectly carry 
out acts of terrorism against the United States and U.S. 
persons, the impact of national security of the United States, 
and the safety of American citizens as a result of any Iranian 
actions reported under this paragraph.''
    And an additional paragraph was added, ``an assessment of 
whether violations of internationally recognized human rights 
have changed, increased, or decreased as compared to the prior 
180-day period.'' These reports are due every 6 months. So it 
is a very strong provision in regards to keeping Congress 
informed as to these types of activities. And, of course, we 
always have the right to take action.
    So I just would urge my colleague to recognize that the 
certification provisions could very well compromise the ability 
of the United States to continue its negotiations, whereas this 
manager's amendment is very strong on the terrorism issues.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Very briefly, let me say I have no doubt 
that Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism, and not 
because I say it, but because the State Department says it, so 
that is real. Having said that, my reason for seeking to 
include it was concerns that non-nuclear sanctions would be 
waived as it relates to terrorism and other elements.
    In view of the language that makes it clear that none of 
those other sanctions will be waived as a result of any nuclear 
deal, I certainly support the bill as it presently stands, and 
I will continue to pursue Iran as it relates to a state sponsor 
of terrorism in other venues. But I think it is so important 
having that clear now, that it is not going to be waived under 
any set of circumstances to have this type of process for the 
Senate to review any potential deal at the end of the day, that 
I do not think that this is an impediment to our goal of both 
having a review process and making sure that Iran continues to 
suffer the consequences for being a state sponsor of terrorism. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. If there are--yes, sir?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, I would speak in favor of 
the Barrasso amendment. We know that Iran has targeted and 
killed Americans. And I would just point out in the op-ed 
written about a week ago by Secretaries Schultz and Kissinger 
in the Wall Street Journal, their statements that, ``With the 
recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies 
positions along all the Middle East strategic waterways and 
encircles arch rival Saudi Arabia and American allies. And 
unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an 
agreement freeing Iran from sanctions, risks, empowering Iran's 
hegemonic tendencies--efforts''--excuse me. ``Absent the 
linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America's 
traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded 
temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian 
hegemony.'' I think it is important that we have this in here 
as the former secretaries have pointed out.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I have spent a lot of 
time talking to Secretary Kissinger. Like many of us, we have 
that ability, and I could not agree more with the comments that 
were in the op-ed. And that is why the language that Senator 
Menendez has mentioned clears that up and absolutely makes it 
known to all that we in no way--no way--as part of the 
agreement that we will discuss later if we pass this 
legislation, in no way will those sanctions be removed.
    And I might add, to the extent we have the information that 
will be much more available to us from an intelligence 
standpoint as to what has happened, we have the tool of all of 
these sanctions that we are talking about today to even add to 
that. But I know the senator would like to have a vote if there 
is no objection. Do you want to speak to it anymore? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman. Let us have a roll call vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are six, the nays are 13.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And, again, I thank you so much 
for the way you have worked on this and your ability to raise 
that issue again in here. I very much appreciate that.
    So it is my understanding then if there are no other 
amendments--are there any other amendments?
    Voice. No.
    The Chairman. I think we have had a motion and a second to 
move to the manager's package, which we will now vote on. And 
if the clerk would please call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer:
    Senator Boxer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 19, the nays are 
zero.
    The Chairman. Are there any other amendments now to the 
base legislation that has been amended by the manager's 
package?[No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion that we move ahead with 
approving the bill as amended by the manager's package?
    Senator Risch. So move.
    Senator Johnson. Seconded.
    The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded. The question 
is a motion to approve S. 615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act 
of 2015, as amended. If the clerk would call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer:
    Senator Boxer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    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 Chairman. Thank you.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 19, the nays are 
zero.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. Obviously that completes 
our committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    And with that the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you 
all.


    [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

A Nuclear Deal That Offers A Safer World--The Washington Post,April 12, 
                                  2015

                           by ernest moniz\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Ernest Moniz is U.S. energy secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The recent announcement of the Lausanne framework concerning Iran's 
nuclear program has stimulated a lively public and political debate. 
This is an important discussion that the nation deserves to have, and 
it must be informed by clarity on the specifics of the negotiated 
technical parameters for a final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 
(JCPOA).
    I joined Secretary of State John F. Kerry's negotiating team in 
late February, but throughout the negotiations, leading nuclear experts 
at the Energy Department and its national labs have been involved in 
the careful development and thorough evaluation of the technical 
proposals to help define U.S. positions.
    As a result, the key parameters for the agreement that was 
announced April 2 in Switzerland provide a technically sound path for 
certifying Iran's nuclear program as peaceful, quickly determining if 
it is not and providing the breathing room needed to respond 
appropriately.
    Iran has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to a peaceful 
program, but today's reality of national and U.N. sanctions highlights 
the international community's concern about Iran's past nuclear 
activity. The Lausanne understanding is not built on trust. It is built 
on hard-nosed requirements that would limit Iran's activities and 
ensure vital access and transparency.
    An important part of the parameters is a set of restrictions that 
would significantly increase the time it would take Iran to produce the 
nuclear material needed for a weapon--the breakout time--if it pursued 
one. The current breakout time is just two to three months. Under the 
JCPOA, that would increase to at least a year for at least 10 years, 
more than enough time to mount an effective response.
    The negotiated parameters would block Iran's four pathways to a 
nuclear weapon--the path through plutonium production at the Arak 
reactor, two paths to a uranium weapon through the Natanz and Fordow 
enrichment facilities, and the path of covert activity.
    To start, Iran would not have a source of weapons-grade plutonium. 
The Arak reactor would be redesigned and internationally certified to 
produce much less plutonium and no weapons-grade plutonium. In 
addition, we have agreed that all of the plutonium-bearing spent 
reactor fuel would be sent out of the country for the lifetime of the 
reactor. Any attempt to use the Arak reactor to produce weapons-grade 
plutonium would be easily detected.
    Furthermore, for the indefinite future, Iran would have no 
capability to extract plutonium from spent fuel from any reactor and 
conduct no research and development on such reprocessing. No other 
heavy-water reactors, a type .often associated with weapons programs, 
would be built for at least 15 years, and any excess heavy water would 
be sold off. This framework shuts down the plutonium pathway.
    To block the pathways to a uranium weapon, Iran would reduce the 
number of operational centrifuges at Natanz to just over 5,000, from a 
current national inventory of almost 20,000--and for a decade its only 
operational centrifuges would be IR-1s, Iran's oldest and least capable 
model. When combined with a reduction in its enriched uranium stockpile 
from 10 tons to just 300 kilograms and enriched to less than 3.7 
percent, the time necessary to accumulate enough highly enriched 
uranium for a first bomb would match our requirement of at least a year 
for 10 years. It would take even longer to assemble a complete weapon. 
The uranium stockpile limitation would be in place for 15 years.
    Additionally, for at least the first decade, there would be no R&D 
on a more advanced centrifuge model at the scale needed to confidently 
deploy that model for production.
    Iran would no longer use the underground Fordow facility to enrich 
uranium or conduct uranium enrichment R&D in fact, no uranium would 
even be allowed at the facility. Nearly two-thirds of the centrifuges 
and infrastructure would be immediately removed, with just more than 10 
percent of the centrifuges left operational. Furthermore, over time 
these centrifuges would be transitioned to non-uranium activities, and 
Fordow would become a physics research and medical isotope center. The 
monitoring provisions of an agreement would easily detect any misuse of 
the facility.
    The fourth pathway would be to produce enough fissile material for 
a weapon through covert means. We counter that pathway with 
unprecedented safeguards and access to not just enrichment facilities, 
but also to the full uranium supply chain, from mines to centrifuge 
manufacturing and operation. The uranium supply chain verification 
comes with a 25-year commitment.
    Iran would quickly implement, and eventually ratify, the Additional 
Protocol to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards 
agreement. The Additional Protocol allows inspections and sampling at 
both declared nuclear facilities, such as Natanz, Fordow and Arak, and 
undeclared sites at which out-of-bounds activities are suspected. The 
IAEA would also be allowed to use advanced technologies to enhance 
continuous monitoring.
    This agreement is not for 10, 15 or 20 years; it is a phased 
agreement built for the long term. And if Iran earns the international 
community's confidence in its peaceful objectives over this extended 
period, then the constraints will ease in phases, though its 
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 
Additional Protocol would remain in place indefinitely.
    Since the parameters were announced, there have been reports of 
differences between the fact sheets put out by the United States and 
Iran. It is not surprising that Iran seeks to frame the debate over 
certain parts of the framework, but the parameters remain the same. And 
over the next few months, the United States and its negotiating 
partners will continue to work toward a formal agreement with Iran.
    No--sanctions, diplomacy or other--are taken off the table. When 
combined with other political provisions in the framework for an 
agreement negotiated by Kerry and his partners, the recently concluded 
negotiation represents an important step toward a safer world.



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 21, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:22 a.m., in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Johnson, Flake, 
Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Barrasso, Cardin, Boxer, Menendez, 
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  I think what we will do, if it is okay with 
everyone, is get going, and then when we get two more members, 
go ahead and vote. But I want to thank everybody--actually we 
may be close to voting.
    I want to bring the business meeting to order. Thank 
everyone for being here. We have a number of items on the 
agenda today including two items of legislation, seven 
nominations, and over 600 personnel who have been nominated for 
appointment and promotion into and within the Foreign Service. 
So I especially thank people for coming together for that. It 
will affect 600 folks if we are successful.
    First, we want to consider S. 802, Girls Count Act of 2015. 
I commend Senator Rubio, Senator Cardin, Senator Shaheen, and 
Senator Coons for bringing up this bipartisan bill. This bill 
highlights and establishes practical steps to ensure that 
appropriate attention and resources are focused on making sure 
that young children, particularly girls, beginning at birth 
have basic identity documents that they will need to success in 
life.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for his comments, Senator Cardin.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we 
do not have yet have the numbers necessary to report out. I 
will talk only as long as we have a quorum. If we get a quorum 
for reporting out, I will be glad to----
    The Chairman.  And I am sure other people might want to----
    Senator Cardin. Okay. So let me, if I might, first thank 
you very much for conducting this markup. I agree with you. The 
two bits of legislation we have are both very important, and I 
want to thank Senator Rubio and Senator Shaheen for their work 
on Girls Count Act. It is absolutely true that the manner in 
which a country treats its young people, its women 
particularly, will very much be an indicator as to how stable 
and how safe that country will be and how prosperous it will 
be. So I thank very much our leaders for bringing this bill to 
us and for--I strongly support it.
    In regards to the Combating Anti-Semitism bill, I want to 
thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk for their leadership on 
this resolution. Let me just point out, I have recently visited 
Europe on behalf of the OSCE. I am their special representative 
on anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance, and the security of 
the Jewish community in Europe is really being threatened 
today. And I am glad that our committee will speak with a 
strong voice on this resolution in regards to the problems 
facing Jewish communities in Europe, and our concern about 
their safety and our activism on that issue.
    And lastly, let me just point out that I thank you very 
much for bringing up these nominations for action. And I know 
we are at the early stages of this session, but let me just 
urge, and I have told this chairman this in our personal 
conversations. I hope that we can move nominations as quickly 
as possible through this committee. I know there will be 
challenges on the floor. In most cases, we are dealing with 
career people whose lives, in some cases, are on hold pending 
the action of the United States Senate.
    And it is important in their lives, but also important in 
regards to the responsibilities of the mission in which they 
are being nominated that we have confirmed nominees. And I 
thank the chairman for his cooperation, and I particularly 
thank you for bringing up these nominations.
    The Chairman.  And I could not agree more that we need to 
move these people along as quickly as possible. Is there anyone 
else that would wish to speak to the--to the item before us, S. 
802? Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want 
to thank Senator Rubio and his staff for working with us to get 
this important bill drafted. It directs U.S. foreign assistance 
programs to ensure that developing countries provide birth 
registries for their girls as well as their boys. Every year 
about 51 million children, mostly girls, are not registered at 
birth, and that leaves them subject to human trafficking. They 
are excluded often from basic services, including education. 
And this legislation would help to address that.
    And I would just point out it is supported by groups as 
varied as Catholic Relief Services, the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Grow Up Campaign of the UN 
Foundation, the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, and 
the International Justice Mission. So there are a wide variety 
of groups supporting this legislation. It makes sense, and I 
hope everyone will join us in supporting it this morning.
    The Chairman.  Thank you for bringing it forward. Any other 
comments on this particular legislation? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, I will entertain a motion----
    Senator Boxer. So moved.
    The Chairman:--that we actually consider the substitute 
amendment by voice vote. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Thank you. We are excited today. Is there 
any objection? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Did anybody second that, by the way?
    Senator Perdue. Second.
    The Chairman.  Let us do that again, okay? [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Perdue seconded. So moved and seconded.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Thank you. And the ayes have it. The 
substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 802, Girls 
Count Act of 2015, as amended.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    Next, we will consider S. Res. 87, a resolution to express 
the sense of the Senate regarding the rise of anti-Semitism 
that Senator Cardin just mentioned in Europe to encourage 
greater cooperation with European governments, the European 
Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe in preventing and responding to anti-Semitism.
    We thank Senator Menendez for bringing this bipartisan 
resolution to the committee. Fifty-six Senators, including 
myself, have co-sponsored this resolution. The shocking murder 
of Jews in Europe and rising anti-Semitic sentiment requires 
this--a call to this resolution makes for the United States and 
our democratic allies to speak and take action. Senator Cardin, 
do you have any additional comments other than the ones you 
have already made? [Nonverbal response.]
    The Chairman.  Would anyone else like to speak to this 
particular piece of legislation? Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Just thank you and Senator Cardin for 
having it on the business agenda. I think it is incredibly 
important that those of us who are unaffected by the reality of 
anti-Semitism are equally as outraged as those who are. And 
when we turn a blind eye to what is happening either at home or 
around the world, we allow the voices of hatred to rise, and 
words have consequences as we have seen in history.
    So I think this is fitting and appropriate, and we are up 
to 60 co-sponsors.
    The Chairman.  Good.
    Senator Menendez. And hopefully we will get a resounding 
vote when we get to the Senate floor. Thank you for putting it 
on the agenda.
    The Chairman.  Continued significant bipartisan efforts on 
your behalf. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman.  Anything else?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman.  Yes?
    Senator Kaine. If I could just speak in favor of this was 
well. You know, I think we spend an awful lot of time in this 
committee, and I am on the Armed Services Committee, too. And 
we spend an awful lot of time talking about problems with 
authoritarian nations and problems with non-state Jihadists and 
criminal networks. But we can sometimes then take for granted 
that democracies are doing fine, but there are some troubling 
trends in democracies that we do not spend enough time on. And 
I think the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe is one of those 
troubling trends.
    We cannot take for granted that democracies will remain in 
a forward-looking posture, and that is why I am proud to 
support this.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Any other comments? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to approve this 
legislation?
    Senator Flake. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    The Chairman.  Boxer? So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion of S. Res. 87.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The resolution is 
approved.
    The next order of business is seven nominations before the 
committee: Charles Adams to be the ambassador to the Republic 
of Finland; Cassandra Butts to be the ambassador to the 
Commonwealth of the Bahamas. Pretty nice job. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Paul Folmsbee to be the ambassador to the 
Republic of Mali; Fitz Haney to be the ambassador to the 
Republic of Costa Rica; Matthew McGuire to be the U.S. 
Executive Director of the International Bank of Reconstruction 
and Development; Mary Katherine Phee to be the Ambassador of 
the Republic of South Sudan; Gentry O. Smith to be the director 
of Office of Foreign Missions.
    I will seek to move them en bloc by voice vote. However, I 
understand there may be some folks that want to be recorded 
differently. [No response.]
    The Chairman.  It sounds like that it is okay to move them 
en bloc. Senator Cardin, do you have any comments regarding 
these nominations? [Nonverbal response.]
    The Chairman.  None? Anyone else want to speak to these 
nominees? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. Is there a motion to move these en 
bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve these seven 
nominations.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    Senator Barrasso. I just want to be recorded as a no vote 
on Matthew McGuire.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The nominations will be 
recommended to the full Senate for Senate consideration of 
advice and consent.
    Our last business is six Foreign Service officer lists. 
Again, I want to thank everybody for their cooperation. I 
support these appointments and promotions, and would like to 
thank all those officers for their outstanding service to our 
country. In addition, I would like to note that we work with 
the relevant agencies to approve the vetting that these 
agencies conduct and the information they provide the 
committee. I do not know if Senator Cardin would like to speak 
to that.
    Senator Cardin. No. Once again, I appreciate the--getting 
this quickly onto the agenda for approval. So thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there any other discussion? 
[No response.]
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Seeing none, I would like--I 
would--wonder if someone would move----
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman:--that we move these en bloc. Second?
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. The question on--the motion is 
moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to approve 
six Foreign Service lists en bloc, as modified.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All oppose? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and the 
appointments and promotions are agreed to.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes. Without objection, so ordered.
    With that, we are adjourned. Thank you all so much. I 
appreciate it.


    [Whereupon, at 9:33 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 9, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:23 p.m. in Room 
S-116, Capitol Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Paul, Barrasso, Cardin, Boxer, 
Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  I am going to call the meeting to order, and 
I appreciate everybody's patience. I know there is an NDAA vote 
that went on. We were waiting for that to occur.
    And I want to thank the ranking member and his staff and 
our staff for the way we have worked to submit a manager's 
package that I think is going to make the meeting go much more 
quickly than anticipated. I hope that is the case.
    But anyway, we have got a number of items on the agenda, 
including three pieces of legislation, six nominations, two 
Foreign Service lists totaling over 500 officers of appointment 
and promotion into and within the Foreign Service.
    The largest item on our agenda, of course, is the State 
Department authorization. I want to thank all members and their 
staffs for working with us to produce a draft bill for 
consideration of the committee. Just like our work on Iran and 
other issues, it is an important opportunity for the committee 
to assert its jurisdiction and shape and provide oversight and 
priorities in the functionality of the agencies within our 
purview.
    With that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
ranking member for his comments, Senator Cardin.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you very 
much for this opportunity. I really do appreciate the manner 
that you have reached out to all members of our committee in an 
effort to carry out one of the primary responsibilities we have 
as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and that is to do 
the authorization for the State Department.
    And it has been a challenge to try to get that completed. 
We recognize that this is not the best way to do this. It would 
be better to have a separate bill that we could spend a little 
more time on, but in this Congress, this is, I think, our best 
opportunity for us to exercise our committee's jurisdiction.
    And when you look at the National Defense Authorization Act 
and you see so much of the work that is done in that bill 
affects our committee, I think it is extremely important that 
we come together with the State Department authorization. And I 
congratulate you for the manner in which you have worked with 
us to try to come together with a bill that reflects the work 
of this committee.
    This is a compromise. I am sure there is provisions in here 
and other provisions you would like to see included that will 
not. And the same thing is true with, I think, the Democratic 
members. But I think this has been done in an open way with all 
of our members. I am very proud of the way that we have been 
able to come together, and we will be submitting a manager's 
package that incorporates many of the amendments that have been 
offered by members of this committee.
    It is important that we move forward. This product will 
include embassy security, which is critically important. Many 
areas of good governance and human rights within the State 
Department's mission, including dealing with atrocities 
prevention, dealing with anti-corruption issues, dealing with 
anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance, dealing with 
child abduction, dealing with gender discrimination, dealing 
with diversity within the department, dealing with the State 
Department needs on its Foreign Service officers, and I could 
go on and on and on.
    And there are many other issues. So, but I want to just end 
with one other issue that is in this bill that I think is very 
important. And that is it includes reports by the State 
Department to us in many areas that I hope you will get those 
reports, look at those reports, work on them so that next year, 
when we work on the State Department authorization, we have a 
lot more information before us, and we can have a more robust 
authorization in many of the areas that are not included in 
this bill that we need to move on.
    But I am very proud of the work that we have done this 
year. I think it is the right step forward, and we have more 
work to do in the future.
    Last point, there are other issues on the agenda that you 
mentioned, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act. I thank 
you for including the legislation that I authored. I think we 
need to point out that there has been 7.6 million people 
displaced in Syria. Two hundred thousand people have been 
killed.
    And I think it is important for the United States Senate 
and for Congress to take leadership that we need to demand 
accountability for those who have committed war crimes in 
Syria.
    I want to congratulate Senator Isakson for sticking with 
the Iran Hostage Compensation Act. I know it has been a long 
road. I think you are almost there, and I am very proud to 
support your efforts and thank you for the extraordinary work 
that you put in on behalf of people who really need the 
attention of this Congress.
    And lastly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for including the six 
nominees and the Foreign Service lists that are included here 
so that we can move those positions forward and, hopefully, get 
those people in their assignments.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you.
    And if I could just make note on the NDAA, look, what we 
have done is we have a placeholder amendment in the NDAA that 
was an old draft of an authorization bill. If we pass something 
out today, what I hope to do is substitute that. Let me just 
say with the state of play on the floor and the way amendments 
are being processed, I cannot guarantee that that is the route 
that we will actually be able to consummate. But it is 
obviously the one we hope to consummate, and actually, we think 
it is the best way for this to become law.
    But I thank you so much for the way.
    So, with that, what I would like to do is ask the committee 
to proceed en bloc in a voice vote in consideration of six 
nominees. Anybody who wants to be recorded otherwise can be, or 
we can call for a roll call vote.
    It is Mr. Raji, to be ambassador to Sweden----
    Senator Cardin. Ms.
    The Chairman [continuing.] Ms. Pettit, to be ambassador to 
Latvia; Mr. Delawie, to Kosovo; Sabharwal, Alternative 
Executive Director to the IMF; Kelly, to be ambassador to 
Georgia; and Noyes, to be ambassador to Croatia.
    I want to thank all those for being willing to serve, and 
Senator Cardin, I do not know if you want to make additional 
comments relative to these nominees?
    Senator Cardin. I move the approval en bloc.
    The Chairman.  Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to 
any of these? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If there is no further discussion on the 
nominations, I would entertain a motion to approve this by a 
voice vote. [Motion.] [Second.]
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the nominations.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, they pass. The ayes have it. 
Recommended to the full Senate.
    Next we consider the Foreign Service lists. There are two 
lists here of Foreign Service officers who are either being 
promoted or getting tenure from the service.
    I support these appointments and promotions. I would like 
to thank all those officers for their service.
    Senator Cardin, would you like to have any additional 
comments?
    Senator Cardin. Just thank you for bringing them.
    The Chairman.  Does anyone wish to speak to any of the 
lists? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, if there is no further discussion 
on these lists, I would entertain a motion to approve these 
lists en bloc by voice vote. [Motion.] [Second.]
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded. The question 
is on the motion to approve the Foreign Service lists.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, passed. And the ayes have it. 
The Foreign Service lists are approved in order to be reported.
    I would now ask that the committee proceed to consideration 
of S. 756, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015. 
Syria is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces 
today. The bill is a small step in the right direction and, 
hopefully, will call attention to what is happening in Syria 
right now.
    Senator Cardin, would you like to speak to this 
legislation?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for putting 
this on the markup. I mentioned it earlier in my opening 
comments, and I thank you. I know that Senator Markey has an 
amendment that I believe he is going to ask consent for a 
couple of modifications, and I think we can do this quickly.
    The Chairman.  Are there any other comments on this 
legislation? Would you like to offer an amendment?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, yes. I have an amendment at 
the desk, and it is quite simple. It is that we want to do full 
justice to all of these poor people in Syria. And so, I propose 
strengthening S. 756 to require the President of the United 
States to introduce a resolution before the United Nations 
Security Council to establish an international war crimes 
tribunal for Syria and to make its passage this year a high and 
urgent United States priority.
    And towards that end, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to revise the words ``most urgent priority'' in lines 12 to 13 
on page 2 to read ``high and urgent priority'' and to revise 
the word ``immediately'' on page 1, line 8 to ``in a timely 
way.''
    And I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we should help to 
elevate this to the international crisis which it is. I mean, 
this is on all sides. There are atrocities being committed on 
all sides in Syria, and by having the United Nations be forced 
to deal with it, I think it will get the attention which it 
needs and deserves.
    So I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
    The Chairman.  Any other comments relative to this 
amendment? I think we have got----
    Okay. We have some issues with the amendment, and I am 
going to vote against the amendment. But I appreciate very much 
you raising these issues, and do you want a roll call vote?
    Senator Markey. If I could, Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Cardin. And his amendment has been modified. Is 
that right? He asked consent to modify his amendment.
    Senator Markey. I asked unanimous consent to modify it, 
yes.
    The Chairman.  Is there any objection? That is fine.
    I guess without further comment, why do we not go ahead and 
vote on the Markey amendment. Would you call roll?
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No. Report?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9. The nays are 9.
    The Chairman.  The amendments fails. It is not agreed to.
    So I guess we would now vote on the base bill. Is there--do 
we need a motion to do so? [Motion.]
    The Chairman.  So is there a second? [Second.]
    The Chairman.  Is a voice vote okay? All in favor of the 
legislation? [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Any opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The Syrian bill passes.
    I would now like to call up the State Department 
operations----
    Senator Cardin. Do you want to take the Isakson bill?
    The Chairman.  No, we are going to take it up in just a 
minute.
    Next I would like to call up the Department of State 
Operations Authorization and Embassy Security Act of Fiscal 
Year 2016. Let me just say we worked up until just a few 
minutes ago getting amendments cleared on both sides. We have a 
large manager's package. I am going to go through each of those 
amendments.
    But I want to say we have never done this. We have not done 
this since 2002. I do hope it is going to become law by virtue 
of the NDAA. If not, we will figure out another package to get 
it on.
    In going through this, and I know this is just an element 
of the State Department operations, there is no question that 
this should be done every single year. There is so much more 
that we could do in the State Department authorizations that 
would hugely, hugely affect what is happening there and allow 
us to leverage our efforts more so on a daily basis versus just 
taking up important and urgent issues as they come up. To 
actually go through an authorization in detail every year and 
ensure that the State Department has the tools that it needs to 
be effective, but to make sure they are carrying out their work 
in a way that is important to national interests is something 
we have to do.
    So, again, we hope to build on this. I think this has been 
a very good effort. I want to thank Senator Cardin and all the 
members of this committee that have been so involved. And with 
that, I would now like to entertain a motion and consider the 
following amendments as part of a manager's amendment by voice 
vote en bloc.
    And those are Corker 2, embassy security. It has a second 
degree regarding immediate threat mitigation. It has a second 
degree regarding FASTC, something that we have worked both with 
Senator Perdue and Senator Kaine on, and with a Cardin second 
degree, language training.
    I do want to say there is going to be a GAO report that is 
going to be coming out soon relative to the selection of a 
FASTC location. I would ask at this time permission of the 
ranking member and others that we have a subcommittee hearing, 
interestingly to be chaired by Senator Perdue and Senator 
Kaine. But a subcommittee hearing to go through this GAO report 
and just make sure that we do not have any additional 
questions.
    There is also an amendment that has been filed, asking--has 
been part of this, asking the State Department to provide us 
all documentation relative to the selection and asking OMB to 
provide us all of the paperwork that went with the selection of 
this location. I know that Senator Kaine is aware there has 
been some controversy over this. The State Department has not 
been forthcoming with its information. As a matter of fact, the 
House actually has a subpoena request out to get that 
information.
    If, for some reason, we find this to be unsatisfactory, my 
sense is the committee is going to want to take up additional 
issues relative to this. All of us want to make sure that 
people are trained properly. We want to make sure they have the 
right facilities, but we also want to make sure that the 
taxpayers are, in fact, dealt with appropriately.
    In addition to that, there is the Boxer 1, gender-based 
violence strategy, with a Corker second degree regarding 
implementation that has been accepted.
    A Cardin 1, international corruption report.
    A Coons 2, QDDR, with a Corker second degree, no new funds.
    A Coons 3, review of SRAP and SCA.
    A Corker 3, sense of the Congress on Japan.
    A Corker 4, sense of the Congress on India.
    A Corker 5, sense of the Congress on Korea.
    A Gardner 2, State Department international cybersecurity 
policy.
    A Johnson 2, adoption fee waiver.
    An Isakson 1, Iran hostages.
    A Markey 2, disappeared persons, with Markey second degree.
    A Menendez 4, TVPA country reports.
    A Perdue-Kaine IG enhancement. Significant amendment, 
appreciate their work on that.
    A Perdue 3, sense of Congress on anti-Semitism, with a 
Perdue second degree.
    A Rubio 1, international religious freedom training, with a 
Rubio second degree.
    A Rubio 2, Bahrain recommendation implementation, with a 
Rubio second degree.
    A Rubio 5 anti-Semitic activity in the U.N., with a Rubio 
second degree.
    A Rubio 6, Haiti, with Rubio second degree.
    A Shaheen 1, former Soviet states, with Corker second 
degree, no new funds, with Johnson second degree on Russian 
propaganda.
    We can move those en bloc with a voice vote, can deal with 
it however you wish. I do not know if anybody wants to----
    Senator Cardin. I move them en bloc.
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    The Chairman.  Does anyone wish to speak to this?
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes?
    Senator Isakson. I do not want to make a speech, but I want 
to acknowledge your hard work, Senator Cardin's work, Senator 
Menendez, who 4 years ago really gave me the chance to make the 
Iran hostage reparations work, the State Department and 
Secretary Kerry, who even with a broken leg a week ago called 
to weigh in and help us with this. These Americans deserve to 
be compensated, and I really appreciate all the cooperation.
    The Chairman.  If I could, I should have spoken to that. I 
mentioned already Senator Isakson likely if this passes today 
and for some reason this does not become a part of the NDAA and 
become law, he may try to hotline this as a separate item, not 
a part of this, in the event when it passes today.
    Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to applaud 
Senator Isakson and everyone who has been part of finally 
getting this done. It is a real miscarriage of justice that 
those people who were in prison for such a long time in Iran, 
who endured such hardship, have never had any compensation 
because of their service.
    And so, thank you very much for your continued effort, and 
I hope we can be successful this time around.
    Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I really want to 
thank you and Senator Cardin. Like Senator Isakson, I will be 
very brief. But you worked so hard with us to include something 
that I worked on with Senators Menendez, Collins, Kirk, and 
Shaheen that had the support of three--that has the support of 
300 humanitarian, faith-based, human rights, refugee, and 
women's organizations.
    Our amendment requires the Secretary of State to develop a 
strategy to prevent and respond to gender-based violence 
globally, and to further the objectives of the strategy, our 
amendment also requires the Secretary to develop comprehensive 
individualized grants for at least four countries with the 
highest levels of violence against women and girls.
    Mr. Chairman, I feel that women and girls are treated so 
badly across the world, and it is wonderful that this committee 
is taking a stand. And even though we know what we do here does 
not mean immediate change, it lets the women and girls of the 
world know that we are watching and we understand it, and we 
are going to be outspoken on it.
    So thank you very much.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Thanks for your efforts.
    Any other comments on the manager's package? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded. If it is not 
objected to, a voice vote en bloc should be good.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed, say nay. [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's package 
is agreed to.
    I think we have already got embassy security dealt with. 
And now we are open to any other amendments. Yes?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I am going to call up the 
Rubio amendment number 4, which is the--it deals with the Hong 
Kong, and I am doing that on behalf of Senator Rubio, who could 
not be here. Also to call up my second-degree amendment that I 
filed to Rubio 4.
    I do not believe this is going to be controversial. So let 
me just do it quickly, if I might? The second-degree amendment 
that I called up is the one that deals with giving--with 
authorizing the President to designate an interagency hostage 
coordinator to lead fusion cells that would coordinate the 
implementation of USG strategy with respect to hostage 
situations abroad.
    Mr. Chairman, I have had two circumstances in my State 
during this past year--Warren Weinstein, who lost his life in 
Pakistan, and Alan Gross, who came home from Cuba. In both 
cases, it is very difficult on the family.
    And I think the administration is moving administratively 
in this direction. There is lots of agencies that get involved 
with the family, but there needs to be a coordinator within the 
agencies and a person in which the family can have reliable 
contact with that can get the information from all the agencies 
that are involved.
    And I would ask--this is bipartisan. It is supported with 
Senator Cornyn, and I would ask support on my second-degree 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  Any discussion? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of 
ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    We will now vote on the base bill. The base amendment.
    Senator Menendez. On the base amendment. You said the base 
bill, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  All those in favor of the Rubio amendment on 
Hong Kong, as amended by the Cardin amendment second degree, 
say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Adopted. Are there other amendments that 
wish to be--yes, sir?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. But 
before I have an amendment, I have an inquiry of the chair. So 
am I to understand correctly, from what I understand from you 
and the ranking member, that assuming that this authorization 
passes the committee, that it is your intention with the 
ranking member to offer it to the NDAA as an amendment?
    The Chairman.  That is correct, sir.
    Senator Menendez. So I first want to applaud the chair for 
his evolution towards considering----
    The Chairman.  I was wondering when that was coming. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. I think I said it rather nicely. For his 
evolution into considering this as an opportunity to NDAA. I 
know that you and I had the discussion in the last Congress, 
and you were somewhat reticent to do that.
    But I think that there are times in which an opportunity to 
actually assert the committee's jurisdiction, even if it is 
through NDAA versus a freestanding bill, is important to do so. 
I want to applaud you for your willingness to do that now.
    And I would like to call up my amendment. I am sorry, let 
me just see, Amendment 2, which is to promote accountability 
and combat corruption in Afghanistan.
    My understanding, if I am not mistaken--and the chair can 
correct me--is that the chair considers this--this is a 
committee report. This is the implementation of a committee 
report that we did that deals with the issues considering the 
national assessment that we have had in Afghanistan, both in 
terms of national treasure and lives, as well as our national 
security interests in Afghanistan.
    My understanding is that the chair considers this a rather 
broad amendment for the purposes of the authorization purposes 
and would consider a markup of it as a freestanding 
legislation. If that is the chair's--if I am correct about the 
chair's intention, then I would withdraw the amendment if I 
could hear from the chair as to what his intention would be.
    The Chairman.  What you have stated is correct, and I thank 
you for stating it the way you did. And I look forward in the 
near future to have a markup on that, and I appreciate your 
work in that regard.
    Senator Menendez. So may I say that I have the chair's 
commitment that we will have an actual markup at some point as 
it relates to this legislation?
    The Chairman.  You have my commitment as long as our 
ranking member does not object to that. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. We will talk about that.
    Senator Menendez. Then I have to really get--but anyhow, 
with that understanding, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  I want to also thank you for the work you 
did on embassy security, and Senator Menendez had looked at 
potentially doing that last year on NDAA. I thank him for 
working with us because in many ways, candidly, the embassy 
security portion helps be the--a big part of the need, if you 
will, on this bill, and a simple piece of it.
    So we thank you. I think it has helped this process move 
along. So I thank you for your cooperation on that matter.
    Are there other amendments? Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. You have my second amendment, which is our 
``stand with Israel'' amendment. And oftentimes, people talk 
about foreign aid as something in which we would project power, 
and I think one way to project power and influence behavior is 
to withhold it if the behavior is not the behavior you would 
like.
    So this would withhold aid to the Palestinian Authority if 
they do not recognize Israel, if they do not renounce 
terrorism, purge all individuals with terrorist ties from 
security forces, terminate funding of anti-American and anti-
Israel incitement, and publicly pledge not to engage in war 
with Israel and honor previous diplomatic agreements.
    The reason why I think this is necessary is because now you 
have a joint unity government with Hamas and Palestinian 
Authority. I think that it needs to be very clear that the 
unity government adheres to this and is not using any of our 
money directly or indirectly to buy missiles that are being 
used against Israel.
    The Chairman.  Is there any discussion? I have a comment I 
want to make. Matter of fact, I will just go ahead and make it.
    I, first of all, want to thank you for your continued 
pursuit of issues surrounding Israel. I do not support this 
amendment, but look forward to working with you in other ways 
in trying to address it.
    As a matter of fact, Senator Barrasso, Senator Kaine, 
myself, and several others were just recently in Israel, and I 
know they do not support this amendment, the government of 
Israel does not support this amendment because of additional 
security issues it would create for them.
    So I am going to oppose the amendment, but I look forward 
to working with you in other ways to try to get messages across 
in an appropriate way to the Palestinian Authority.
    I do not know if anyone else wishes to speak to the 
amendment?
    Senator Cardin. Let me just concur with the chairman and 
your observations, and I also would oppose this amendment.
    Senator Paul. I would like just a quick rejoinder. And that 
would be that I do not think any one person can probably speak 
for all of the government. The government of Israel is very 
pluralistic. There are many different viewpoints.
    The Chairman.  That is a good point.
    Senator Paul. Some in Israel may object to this, but some 
actually support it.
    The Chairman.  I noticed that on the PATRIOT Act. So you 
are exactly right. People have differing views on that, and in 
the government of Israel, we have the same. So I agree with 
that, and I should not have spoken so fully about the 
government of Israel. I know some of the key leaders there are 
very concerned about this amendment.
    Any other comment? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I suppose you want a roll call vote?
    Senator Paul. Yes, please.
    The Chairman.  Okay. The clerk would call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No. And Senator Rubio should be recorded as 
a yes, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 5. The nays are 14.
    The Chairman.  Any other amendments? Yes, sir?
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. President? I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, 
I have 10 amendments of which I will offer 1.
    The Chairman.  Okay. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Actually, thank you very much. [Laughter.]
    Senator Barrasso. I call forth Barrasso amendment number 4. 
This requires the Secretary of State to submit a report to 
Congress on the status of United Nations peacekeeping missions. 
I could go through a long explanation, but basically, we need 
to get a report from the Secretary of State regarding 
prioritization of the missions and the plan to phase out 
missions that have already met their goals, of which we are not 
able to meet goals as well.
    It includes a review of the status of the mandates of three 
open-ended missions, some going back to the 1940s. It also 
requires the United States to oppose future U.N. peacekeeping 
missions unless there is actually a periodic renewal process 
mandated in this so these things do not go on and on. No 
funding shall be provided to new U.N. peacekeeping missions 
unless there is a periodic mandate renewal.
    The Chairman.  I thank the Senator for offering the 
amendment.
    I support the amendment personally. I do not know if anyone 
else wishes to speak to the amendment?
    Senator Cardin. Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this 
amendment. The first part of the explanation I had no problems 
with. Reports on their peacekeeping missions and the needs to 
review the peacekeeping missions, that, to me, is the 
responsibility of our committee on oversight.
    Where I disagree is that this puts restrictions on our 
future opportunities within the United Nations, that it 
requires the President to direct the permanent representative 
to use their influence and vote to ensure that no new United 
Nations peacekeeping mission is approved without the periodic 
mandate renewal so that it could very well affect our ability 
to operate within the United Nations and the priorities of the 
United States with peacekeeping.
    That is one of our key tools that we have available is 
peacekeeping. I must admit peacekeeping does not always get the 
same headlines that active wars get, but peacekeeping prevents 
us from having to deal with active wars.
    And I think that we need--we cannot stop, we should not 
restrict the ability of the United States to participate within 
the United Nations as it relates to prevention of conflict, and 
it seems to me that this amendment would be counterproductive 
to that end.
    So I would just urge us not to restrict the benefits of the 
United Nations in preventing conflict, and I think this 
amendment would have that impact.
    The Chairman.  Any other comments on this amendment? Yes, 
sir?
    Senator Barrasso. And I would just say that of the $8.5 
billion in peacekeeping missions, the United States is paying 
$2.4 billion of that. So I just think in terms of new ones, it 
is reasonable that there be periodic renewals. To me, it seems 
too open-ended the way it is now.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Thank you for offering the 
amendment.
    Any other comments? Do you want a roll call vote?
    Senator Barrasso. Yes.
    The Chairman.  The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The nays are 8.
    The Chairman.  The amendment carries. Thank you.
    Are there other amendments? Senator Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment on the sense of the Congress dealing 
with North Korea. The sense of the Congress talks about the 
violations that North Korea has endeavored upon in terms of 
human rights violations. It also talks about increasing 
sanctions on North Korea. It talks about the concern of North 
Korea from peace, stability point of view.
    We all know, in fact, that they have estimated five nuclear 
warheads today. Possibly 5 years from now, 100 nuclear 
warheads. It talks about increasing economic sanctions, 
targeting financial institutions, and it talks about 
preconditions to make sure that they are living to their end of 
the bargain when it comes to denuclearization.
    And I ask for your support.
    The Chairman.  Very good. I support the amendment. I do not 
know if others would like to speak to the amendment?
    Senator Cardin. I have no objection to this amendment.
    The Chairman.  Voice vote okay?
    Senator Gardner. Great with me.
    The Chairman.  Without objection, all in favor, say aye. [A 
chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The amendment is passed. 
Yes, sir?
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have another amendment on behalf of Senator Rubio, and I 
am going to ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment so it 
may be an amendment to the underlying bill instead of Rubio 
amendment.
    Senator Cardin. What is the amendment number?
    Senator Gardner. The amendment is on the Taiwan Relations 
Act. It is Rubio amendment number 4, but I just asked unanimous 
consent to modify it.
    Senator Cardin. Just give me a chance to see what----
    Senator Boxer. Reserving the right to--can you give us a 
minute?
    Senator Gardner. Sure.
    Senator Cardin. This is Rubio number 4?
    Senator Gardner. It is Rubio number 4.
    Senator Cardin. We have already passed it.
    Senator Gardner. Excuse me. It is a second-degree amendment 
to Corker amendment number 4.
    Senator Cardin. Corker.
    Senator Gardner. Corker. It is a Rubio second degree to 
Corker amendment number 4, expressing the sense of Congress on 
the relationship between the United States and Taiwan. 
[Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, ma'am?
    Senator Shaheen. It is my understanding that Corker number 
4 was part of the manager's package. Can second-degree 
amendments be offered to amendments that have been approved?
    Senator Gardner. That is why I am asking unanimous consent 
for permission to offer the amendment as a modification to the 
underlying bill.
    Senator Boxer. Well, reserving the right to object, I need 
to know what you are doing.
    Senator Cardin. I was just trying to look at it.
    Senator Shaheen. Oh, I did not hear you say that you were--
--
    Senator Cardin. The substantive amendment is what was the 
number?
    Senator Gardner. Taiwan, it is the Rubio number--let us 
see. It is the second-degree amendment Rubio has offered on the 
Taiwan Relations Act. I do not have the number for that. 
[Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Cardin. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I am going to 
read it so everybody understands what is in here because I 
think it is restating the current law. ``It is the sense of 
Congress that United States policy towards Taiwan be based upon 
the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the six assurances given by 
President Ronald Reagan in 1982. Further, that the provision of 
defensive weapons to Taiwan shall continue as mandated by the 
Taiwan Relations Act and that enhanced trade relations with 
Taiwan shall be facilitated to mutually benefit both peoples.''
    It is my understanding that this is the current U.S. policy 
towards Taiwan. So I do not think there is anything here other 
than restating the current policy that we have towards Taiwan. 
For that reason, I would not object to what Senator Gardner is 
trying to do.
    The Chairman.  What has happened is because the second 
degree that he is amending was accepted as part of the 
manager's package and now is part of the base bill, that he 
just amend the base bill as amended by the manager's package. 
And he is asking unanimous consent if it is okay, if it is 
cleared and okay with everyone.
    So if that is--there is no objection, we will ask now for a 
vote.
    Senator Gardner. We will ask now for a vote.
    The Chairman.  Okay. And if there is no objection, I would 
ask that this go by voice vote.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much.
    Are there further amendments? Yes?
    Senator Kaine. I would like to call up Kaine amendment 1 
and offer some thoughts. This is the draft authorization for 
use of military force against ISIL. And Senator Flake and I are 
cosponsoring this. So he may have a word as well.
    We all know because we have been in hearings and even had a 
vote on this before, yesterday was the 10th month anniversary 
of the beginning of the war against ISIL. About 3,500 United 
States bombing runs against ISIL have been conducted. We have 
spent about $2.5 billion. We have lost American service members 
as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, and American hostages 
have also been killed since the war began.
    And we are here without Congress having taken a specific 
action to authorize this particular war. Now there is some 
legal dispute or differences of legal opinion about whether 
earlier authorizations cover this or not. The good news is my 
sense is overwhelmingly in both houses and in both parties, 
there is a belief that the United States should be engaged in 
military action to some degree against ISIL. That is the good 
news.
    The challenge is that there is some significant differences 
of opinion about what that military action should be. Those 
differences appeared when we debated this in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee in December and reported an authorization 
that did not get action on the floor.
    And the differences also became apparent when the President 
sent to us a draft authorization in mid February, 4 months ago, 
and there has not been a congressional--meaningful 
congressional debate on this or not.
    In the aftermath of both that December vote and the 
reaction to the President's draft authorization, I know many of 
us have talked about this, and Senator Flake and I have tried 
to listen to what are the key differences. If there is some 
general sense that the United States should be engaged in 
military action against ISIL, what would be key differences 
among committee members and in the body about how that mission 
should be defined?
    And so, without proclaiming to resolve anybody's issues, we 
nevertheless have presented an authorization where we tried to 
bridge the difference on three issues that we think were 
important, and the question about the extent to which ground 
troops may or may not be used in this campaign, first. Second, 
some more specificity about the definition of the U.S. mission 
against ISIL in Syria. And third, some more specificity about 
the ongoing relationship of the 2001 authorization with respect 
to this mission against ISIL.
    So in each of these areas, the authorization that we have 
proposed tries to bridge a difference, but again, without our 
claiming to solve anybody's problems. But we are trying to show 
that there could be a bipartisan path forward.
    It is my strong view that our allies in ISIL, but 
especially the 3,500 plus troops who are engaged in this war 
and have been since August ought to know that Congress is 
behind them, and the way that we would signal that is through a 
meaningful debate and effort to find a bipartisan path forward 
and a vote. And for that reason, I have offered this Kaine 
amendment 1 as an amendment to the State operations bill.
    And to Senator Flake?
    Senator Flake. I would just say that Tim said it well. I 
think in the aftermath of the Iran Review Act, we showed that 
this committee can come together on something difficult where 
there were a lot of opinions expressed, but in the end, we had 
a bipartisan bill and a good outcome. And I think that our 
allies and our adversaries need to know, deserve to know, 10 
months in, where we are and that we speak with one voice.
    So I urge adoption.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. I applaud Senator Kaine and Senator Flake for 
doing what I think is our constitutional obligation, and that 
is to debate going to war. They gave us this power because they 
wanted the power to be closer to the people. They wanted it to 
be spread among the representatives and not one representative 
or the President.
    My main disagreement, why I will ultimately be a no, is 
that I think without a geographic limitation on this war, we 
have seen that executives in both parties have interpreted 
their mandate to go to war in a very, very broad fashion. We 
still use the 2001 AUMF to mean anything when, in reality, I 
think the people who voted on it thought it meant Afghanistan 
and those who attacked us on 9/11.
    Right now there are 60 different groups in 30 different 
countries that pledge allegiance to ISIS. I think, as written, 
the resolution would allow us to have troops go back into Libya 
tomorrow. I fear that about voting, and I think it is very, 
very important that the wording be exactly correct that we are 
not voting and that we would be recorded whether we are voting 
to go to war in 30 countries.
    For that reason, I will end up being a no, but I do applaud 
the effort.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
    My understanding is they are not asking for a voice vote 
today. We have--as they mentioned, we have been through a very 
good session on Iran and were able to reach a somewhat historic 
agreement, and we will be dealing with that sometime soon if an 
agreement is reached between the P5+1 and Iran.
    Hopefully, today we are going to pass out a State 
Department authorization bill, and if we do that, again, it 
will be a second hurdle, something that has not been done since 
2002 on the floor.
    And then I have mentioned I have talked to both Senator 
Kaine and Senator Flake several times. What I have suggested is 
that we get together in a closed setting and begin talking, as 
we did when we came back and did the Syrian authorization for 
the use of military force, and unfortunately, unfortunately, it 
was never acted upon on the Senate floor.
    I think we would be in a very different place had that 
occurred. But we get together like we did, get down in the 
skids, and just talk about some of the touch points and see if 
there is a place, a way for us to look at going forward.
    Obviously, there are a lot of concerns expressed from a lot 
of different directions. There are some people that are 
concerned about an authorization that limits the scope when 
they are concerned about whether there is an actual strategy in 
place to be successful.
    There are some people who look at this authorization as a 
way to right what they consider to be a wrong in the '01 AUMF, 
where you end up with this perpetual situation and maybe not 
defining it in the way that it should. There are some people 
that, you know, look at this as many believe, that there is 
already legal basis for conducting the operations, and so why 
engage in something that could show a split in the United 
States Congress when, in essence, we all support efforts 
against ISIS?
    So taking those into concern, some of the ones that Senator 
Paul and others have expressed to me individually, what I think 
might be good would be for us to convene a meeting after this 
work is done today and to begin talking about a plausible way 
forward and to see if we think there is a way to bring this to 
the committee in such a way that we can actually pass it on the 
floor and pass it in the House.
    From my perspective, since every single administration 
official that has been before us has felt that they have the 
legal basis to conduct operations against ISIS today and since 
many on this committee believe that while it is on the fringes, 
that that is the case, especially in light of what Senator 
Kaine has mentioned, what I do not want to do is for us to 
begin a process that ends up being a process that does not 
bring us to fruition.
    Again, we did that on Syria. Unfortunately, it was not 
taken up by Congress. Unfortunately, the actions did not occur. 
Unfortunately, we are where we are. There is differing opinions 
on that. That is mine. But I would like for us to be able to 
finish something if we start it, and if we could just agree to 
convene shortly thereafter, we will begin the process.
    And again, I want to thank both of these Senators for their 
sincerity on this issue, for their leadership on this issue. 
And candidly, thank you for the way you have dealt with me on 
this issue, the phone calls and the private meetings that we 
have had.
    So thank you very much.
    Ranking Member Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think Senator Boxer also wants to be recognized.
    Let me first thank Senator Kaine and Senator Flake for 
their leadership on this. You are absolutely correct in that we 
have a responsibility to provide the basis for the use of our 
military force, and that is the responsibility, one of the most 
important responsibilities of the United States Congress. But 
for our committee, it is our principal responsibility to make 
that recommendation to the floor.
    So I think we have a responsibility to move on this, and I 
think, Mr. Chairman, the process you are suggesting is the best 
one, is to sit around and make sure that we can come to an 
agreement. But I just really want to respond very quickly, 
personal process I do not think should be in this bill under 
any scenario. It needs to be on the floor with robust debate 
for all members of the United States Senate. So I do not think 
it should be put into legislation such as the State Department 
authorization. I think it should be its own separate bill.
    And for process reasons, I very much appreciate the fact 
that we will not have to take action on it today here in this 
committee. At least I think that is where we are headed.
    But I want to respond a little bit to Senator Paul's point 
because I share many of his concerns. But the interesting thing 
is the amendment before us is more restrictive on the use of 
military force for ISIL than President Obama's interpretation 
of the authority he has today.
    You are limiting it in time. You are limiting it by 
purpose. Whereas currently, President Obama has made an 
interpretation that the 2001 authorization allows him to use 
basically unlimited force and, by the way, anywhere around the 
world.
    So I understand your concern, Senator Paul. But I would 
suggest it is in all of our interests to come together, even if 
it is not the perfect bill, perfect authorization from our 
point of view because if we let stand the 2001 interpretation, 
it could be used pretty much globally, and it could be used 
without restriction, including the use of ground troops.
    So I have concern. I have concern about the proposal that 
has been brought forward in this amendment, and I know that 
Senator Kaine and Senator Flake are not going to be surprised 
to learn this. I think we have a responsibility to deal with 
the 2001 authorization, and you deal with it as it relates to 
ISIL, but you leave it open for future use for other potential 
conflicts coming out of the problems in the Middle East. And I 
think that is unwise for us to leave that on the books, 
particularly with the current interpretation by this 
administration.
    And then, secondly, I think we have got to be very cautious 
about the authorization for ground troops and the introduction 
of ground troops. We have heard over and over again from our 
strategic partners in the Middle East that the only solution to 
security in the Middle East is for the people in the Middle 
East to be able to defend themselves.
    And every time we put our troops on the ground, we run a 
risk, and I think we have to be very cautious about the 
authorization given that regard. But, Mr. Chairman, today I 
hope is not the opportunity to debate that issue. But I agree 
with your statement that we should, as soon as is convenient, 
come together and see where we could find, I hope, common 
ground on the authorization of the use of military force as it 
relates to ISIL and as it relates to the 2001 and 2002 
authorizations that are currently still open.
    The Chairman.  And before I call on Senator Boxer, if I 
could, I just want to say one thing. I do not think that the--
you can nod your head in agreement or disagreement--I do not 
think there was an expectation that we would debate the merits 
of the authorization today.
    Of course, any Senator can debate whatever they wish, but I 
think the expectation was to raise the issue and to acknowledge 
the fact that very soon, we will have a meeting to begin with 
going forward. So it may not be necessarily----
    Senator Flake. Although if we want to accept it today, we 
would probably agree to that.
    The Chairman.  I do not think anybody would move for a 
voice vote. But I think certainly you have raised the issue, 
and I again appreciate the leadership of both of you. The 
merits of it, I do not think, were necessarily what you all 
were anticipating necessarily debating.
    Senator Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I think the worst thing we 
could do, the worst thing we could do is have a huge split in 
this committee right now, just given what is going on in the 
world.
    I just came back from an amazing conference. Ed Markey was 
there. It was a conference on terrorism. And it is quite a 
challenge for us, and it is confusing. And of course, Senator 
Paul, you are right. These folks are not staying in one place, 
but we have got to take the fight to them, and I want to take 
the fight to them.
    Now I am known as kind of a dove here, but I am telling 
you, those people, ISIL, they cannot win. So we have to take it 
to them. So you cannot, in my opinion, restrict where we are 
going to take it to them because we are going to follow them 
wherever they go, and eventually, they are going to be degraded 
and destroyed.
    It is not going to be easy, as the President said. It is 
going to be a tough, tough deal. It took a while to get bin 
Laden. Obama's administration finally did do it.
    Now I want to say this. There is only one place I did not 
agree with what you said, and it had to do with the fact that 
you did not think it was wise to take up the Syria resolution. 
I believe the fact----
    The Chairman.  No, I did not say that.
    Senator Boxer. Oh, I thought you did. I am sorry. Well, let 
me just say then I think when we did take up the Syria 
resolution and we had such a wonderful vote on that, as I 
recall, it sent a message. And the sides sat down, and we had a 
chemical weapons treaty, which we never, I do not believe, 
would have ever had, had we not shown that determination 
against the use of chemical weapons.
    So maybe I misunderstood.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Boxer. But I am glad you did it. I do want to point 
out that our then-Chairman Menendez had a terrific piece of 
legislation that he worked on with Senator Kaine. We did not 
get one Republican vote, not one.
    The Chairman.  Now this is a different one you are talking 
about.
    Senator Boxer. This is the one dealing not with Syria. This 
is the one dealing with ISIL. I am sorry. We had that vote in 
December, and we did not have one Republican vote. So I am glad 
that now that Republicans are in charge, we are getting 
Democrats to work with Republicans. Good.
    However, I do want to say this. I read what you wrote, and 
there is a word in there. It is called ``significant.'' Now if 
I tell you that I think significant 5,000 troops, and you think 
it is 100,000 troops, we are in a whole lot of hurt. So that 
type of language is, for me, a nonstarter. So I thought I would 
tell you that.
    The last point I would make is this, and it is important 
for me to put it on the record. I voted to go after ISIL when I 
voted for that resolution AUMF after we were attacked in 9/11.
    Now I did not know ISIL would be the outgrowth of al-Qaeda. 
You know, ISIL is made up of a lot of pieces, one of which is 
the Baathists who got pushed out of the military. They are, 
from everything I understand, the heart and soul of ISIL now. 
So we are dealing with the outflow of that war, which I proudly 
voted against.
    The point is I voted to go after these terrorists, and I do 
not feel the need to open up a debate here over words and 
language. I feel comfortable.
    Now for those who were not here then, I also feel your 
angst that you want to go on the record in some way or other. 
But I wanted to just be very, very clear. I am very hawkish on 
going after ISIL. I want to do it the right way. I do not think 
it should be limited geographically, but I think it should be 
totally limited in terms of troops on the ground.
    So if we are going to open up a big dispute about this, I 
agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is smart to do 
it. It sends a mixed message. If we can work together, as you 
are suggesting, that would be wonderful, and I stand ready to 
help in any way that I can.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    And I mean, I think, in essence, your comments allude to 
the fact that you believe the administration today has the 
legal authority. You voted for it.
    Senator Boxer. I do. I do.
    The Chairman.  To clear up so there is no misunderstanding, 
the authorization for the use of force in Syria that we dealt 
with in late August/early September of 2013, we passed out of 
committee, but there was not a way forward on the floor.
    Senator Boxer. That is accurate. That is totally accurate.
    The Chairman.  And then, so that was what I was trying to 
clear up.
    Senator Boxer. I am sorry. I misunderstood.
    The Chairman.  That is all right. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate all the work of Senator Kaine and Senator 
Flake. I think this is the right path for us to sit together 
and start to map out a strategy to bridge our differences.
    Just two brief points. I had a second-degree amendment that 
would reinstate the language that we passed in December 
regarding troop limitations. I think there is, frankly, a lot 
of members on both sides of the aisle who do not think it is a 
smart strategy, who do not think that we could win the fight 
against ISIL with a massive redeployment of American ground 
forces.
    And I would just make the pitch that if we are going to 
reassert our authority as a committee, it is perfectly within 
our right to place limitations that help shape strategy on 
these fights against enemies abroad. There is no constitutional 
obligation that we, as a committee, endorse big, wide, open-
ended authorizations for military force. And as members of this 
committee know, there is plenty of examples where we do that.
    And I think Senator Kaine and Senator Flake made a really 
good attempt to try to bridge these differences. I hope that we 
will not just throw out the potential for getting to an 
agreement limitation on ground forces.
    Second quick point is this. I have expressed this to Tim 
privately. But I think we have to be careful to read this draft 
authorization that we will work on in the most expansive terms 
possible.
    Many of us would have never imagined that the 2001 and the 
2003 authorization would be used as justification to fight this 
war, and it is just a caution that anything that you write that 
does not have a sunset on it, as Senator Menendez's draft did 
last year, can be twisted and interpreted in ways that the 
people who voted on it at the outset could have never, ever 
imagined.
    And I think that this draft has some really creative ways 
to get at questions of associated forces and troop limitations. 
But my caution is simply to imagine different Presidents in 
different eras and what they could do with this in a scenario 
very different than what we are looking at.
    But I think that those are the kind of conversations that 
are really appropriate to have when we pull together the 
committee after this markup.
    The Chairman.  Thank you for the comments.
    Senator Markey. Thirty seconds.
    The Chairman.  We are going to have a lot of time to talk 
about this, and it is the most important issue that is actually 
before us right now. And certainly I am going to recognize 
others who wish to speak.
    I do hope that before we lose the quorum, we are going to 
have the opportunity to vote out the base bill. And again, I 
thank you for the efforts.
    I think, on the other hand, what is being eliminated at 
present are some of the issues that separate us. Yes, sir?
    Senator Coons. I just want to commend Senator Kaine and 
Senator Flake for their work on this, and thank you for being 
willing to reconvene the same sort of process that then-
Chairman Menendez led that I think produced a really great 
bipartisan, solid result.
    We have a number of reasons to be concerned that the '01 
AUMF is still being used, and I just want to agree with Senator 
Cardin that we should get also in this process moving on 
reconsidering the '01 AUMF.
    I have another--I have an amendment I will not call up, I 
will not ask for a vote on. But I know at some point, we will 
also get into a discussion about Ambassadors for the next 
administration. I do think there are some unresolved issues 
there that my amendment was designed to try and address.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. I appreciate you mentioning it 
for the next administration.
    Yes, sir?
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I do. I see this as a conversation starter. We are 
coming up to the first anniversary of the United States 
intervention against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. We have not had a 
hearing on developments related to the U.S. military effort 
thus far.
    I think that would be an important thing that we should 
have before we begin consideration, that we hear not only 
militarily, but politically where this issue has evolved in 
Iraq and Syria and other nations. I think we should hear that 
so we understand what the context is for us to be talking about 
the deployment of American troops.
    In this particular draft, and I thank again Senator Kaine 
and Senator Flake for starting it, we have to have this 
conversation. Some of the language I do not think sufficiently 
limits U.S. combat troops in Syria and in Iraq. It does leave 
the 2001 AUMF in place so we could potentially have two open 
AUMFs simultaneously operating with some legal ambiguity in 
between the two of them. And third, it does potentially allow 
for U.S. combat forces on the ground in Syria to defend Syrian 
opposition elements.
    I think each one of those issues should be aired in a way 
that we understand fully what it is that we are authorizing 
when we go forward. But again, it is in the context of the 
issue having been raised, and I think it is time for us to 
start. The first anniversary is coming up in another 2 months.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Any other comments? Would either of you like to withdraw 
your amendment?
    Senator Kaine. I will withdraw it, Mr. Chair. And with the 
permission of my cosponsor, I think the ability to take this up 
as an individual item by the committee is very important and 
especially 10 months in. And you know, when we hit that year 
anniversary, then we will be out for a month, and you know, we 
have already lost service members.
    And God forbid, we do not want to lose more, with us having 
not done our job when thousands are doing a job and risking 
their lives every day. So, with that commitment that we will 
now take this matter up as a standalone in committee, I am glad 
to withdraw----
    The Chairman.  Well, the commitment is that I want to make 
sure--my word is something I value. We are going to have a 
meeting and discuss, you know, see if there is a way forward in 
a private setting first.
    Senator Kaine. I have confidence. I have confidence in a 
committee that could take a super partisan Iran issue and make 
it nonpartisan, that we can find a nonpartisan way to put our 
support behind American troops who are risking their lives.
    The Chairman.  I got it. I have confidence there is going 
to be a lot of discussion about it. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  But I do very much appreciate your 
leadership, the way that you have handled it, and both of you. 
And many others, by the way. We have had comments. Senator 
Menendez obviously led us last December to--to an outcome there 
that obviously was also not going to probably see the light of 
day, but I appreciate it. It sounds like he wants to speak to 
this issue?
    Senator Menendez. No, Mr. Chair. I thought you were getting 
ready to ask for other amendments.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Yes, so my commitment is we will 
convene and see if there is a way forward. And I do hope that 
you are right relative to our ability to take it up in 
committee later on because--if we did.
    Yes, sir. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up 
Rubio amendment number 7 on his behalf as well as my own.
    Last year--bipartisan. Last year, my bill, the Venezuela 
Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act, was signed into 
law by the President, providing him with the authority needed 
to act against the government of Venezuela and military 
officials complicit in human rights violations perpetrated 
against peaceful protesters.
    This amendment would ensure that Congress has continued 
information about U.S. efforts to support democracy, pursue the 
peaceful resolution of Venezuela's political crisis, and bring 
to light additional information about those government 
officials that are responsible for violence against peaceful 
protesters.
    We have two of the leading opposition figures--Leopoldo 
Lopez, who has been jailed arbitrary, capriciously, no bail, no 
nothing. He is in the midst of a hunger strike. The mayor of 
Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, same thing. Jailed for months, also 
on a hunger strike.
    And I think our committee would benefit from the 
information about our efforts to engage on the democracy 
efforts in this regard, pursuant to the law that has already 
been signed into law. So I would urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
    The Chairman.  Any other discussion? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  A voice vote acceptable? I support the 
amendment also.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment passes and becomes part of the 
base bill.
    Senator Flake?
    Senator Flake. I have an amendment sent up. This one I 
believe was going to be pulled. Did we--are we good on that 
one?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes. No, I have another amendment. I am 
trying to get in line after you. [Laughter.]
    Senator Flake. This one, I believe we talked about maybe 
again as part of the manager's amendment. I do not think it is 
controversial at all. This is with regard to simply requiring 
the State Department to provide us with notice when the United 
Nations General Assembly votes to change assessment levels for 
peacekeeping missions.
    We found out sometimes after the fact that we changed the 
mission. For example, using peacekeepers in South Sudan to 
protect almost exclusively Chinese interests there. And this is 
simply that they notify us so we can make better decisions on 
what we do there.
    So I would ask for support, but I think it is 
noncontroversial. We could do it by voice vote.
    Senator Kaine. Is that Flake amendment 4?
    Senator Flake. Four, yes.
    Senator Kaine. Correct?
    Senator Flake. Yes.
    The Chairman.  Any discussion on Flake amendment 4? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman.  Without objection, we will have a voice 
vote.
    All in favor? [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    Senator Flake. I just have one more quick one. This is--I 
have several----
    The Chairman.  The amendment passes.
    Senator Flake. I am sorry. I had several on OCO. My concern 
is that we are going to hear, as we have elsewhere, just move 
things toward OCO. And since this bill does not have any 
limitations at all on authorization levels, I thought it might 
be prudent to simply add just sense of Congress language is all 
it is, nonbinding.
    Just say that we should not exceed the spending caps or 
increase OCO designated expenditures beyond what as a means to 
skirt the spending caps.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, can I just--I would encourage 
my colleague not to press this amendment. And the reason is has 
nothing to do with this committee.
    We have worked very hard to avoid areas of controversy on 
the budget that is beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, 
and I hope that as we go forward in State Department 
reauthorizations in the future that we will have impact on the 
budget process and on the appropriation process. And then I 
think we may very well get involved in that debate. We are not 
there this year.
    And I would just urge my colleague to--we understand your 
concerns. There is concerns on this side that we would like to 
get your support for higher levels of appropriations than the 
budget caps, and let us leave that to a debate on the budget 
rather than a debate in the State Department authorization.
    The Chairman.  If I could speak to it also? And this is the 
first time this has today curved this way. Because of what has 
happened on the floor, because of the vote we took at 3:00 
p.m., because of the whole issue of the authorization amount 
versus appropriations and the controversy that that has 
created, even though this is a sense of the Senate, in order to 
keep the balance that we have established here in accepting all 
kinds of amendments, I would also ask that you consider that.
    If you want to have a vote on it, we can. I do not think--I 
think because of what I just stated, it might not pass. But I 
agree with the sentiment, and I actually agree with the 
amendment. But I understand the problems that it creates for 
the other members of the committee, especially as they deal 
with their leadership overall on this issue as we move through 
appropriations.
    Senator Flake. In deference to the chairman and the ranking 
minority member, I will withdraw. Just to say, though, I hope 
that we do address this issue going forward. It is a concern, 
and in many areas of the budget, we see OCO funding simply 
springing up and it is very concerning.
    The Chairman.  It is, and our budget process, to be candid, 
as Senator Johnson, Senator Perdue, and others here, Senator 
Kaine and others who are on the committee know, it is--it 
leaves a lot to be desired. And certainly, these issues I do 
not think were addressed adequately there either.
    But thank you very much for that. Are there other 
amendments?
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up 
Shaheen amendment number 2, which deals with enhanced immunity 
for consular employees. Right now consular employees are not 
afforded full diplomatic immunity, and so they can be subject 
to arbitrary arrest, detention, harassment.
    So that you could have two people who both are--work for 
the State Department, one in an embassy, one in a consulate, 
with the same job title, performing the same exact functions, 
serving the United States with the exact same responsibilities, 
but the consular employee has significantly fewer protections 
based on just the geography of where that employee is posted.
    Commissioned consular officers enjoy a limited form of 
immunity from arrest. So they can only be arrested for a grave 
crime and pursuant to warrant. But numerous officials at 
consular posts who represent very many different Federal 
agencies, including our military, including law enforcement 
personnel, they are not commissioned as consular officers and 
thus are subject to arrest, detention, seizure under ordinary 
local procedures.
    And we have about 1,000 personnel from different Federal 
agencies located at our consulates, including over 200 DoD 
personnel. What this amendment would do is provide for 
protections for these consular personnel in response to 
changing political conditions in a particular country.
    So I would urge support for this amendment.
    The Chairman.  We have, I know, talked with your office a 
little bit and with the State Department. We have had some 
difficulty understanding exactly the need for this, and we 
appreciate your intent, and if you want a vote on it, that 
certainly would be fine.
    We would offer, if you would consider withdrawing it, to 
work with you and the State Department to try to figure out the 
reason, the problem that is causing this as a solution to be 
put forward and try to resolve that and maybe mark it up next 
time.
    Or if you wish, just it has been very vague the 
explanations that we got from the State Department. And again, 
we do not have any visceral opposition. We just do not yet 
understand why this is being brought forward.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I am happy to withdraw it with the 
commitment that we will continue to work on it and try and get 
a resolution because the language is really based on a 1978 
law, the Diplomatic Relations Act, which did similar kinds of 
enhanced immunities for our personnel.
    The Chairman.  You have that commitment.
    Senator Cardin. That is fine. I just really wanted to thank 
Senator Shaheen.
    I think this is a problem we really--it is up to us to try 
to help correct. Because if you are serving overseas in a 
professional capacity representing our country, and you just 
happen to be in a consulate office versus an embassy, you 
should not be treated differently by the host country.
    So I would just urge us to try to find a way to see what 
the problem is about, and if they need a legislative solution, 
let us try to do it as soon as we can.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Senator Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up 
Perdue number 2, and I understand there are two second degrees, 
one of which I am a sponsor and one I think Senator Johnson 
will speak to. Do you want to do that now?
    Senator Johnson. Why do you not bring up yours first, and 
then I will.
    Senator Perdue. So this amendment basically would require 
the Secretary of State, in coordination with the National 
Security Council and the Department of Defense, to simply 
produce a strategy for the Middle East in the event of a 
comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. We just had two 
former administration officials testify last week in front of 
this committee that a strategy, a comprehensive strategy for 
the Middle East in a post nuclear Iran deal in that scenario is 
needed.
    As Ambassador James Jeffrey said, a complement to the deal 
with Iran, in a complement with that deal, there has to be a 
U.S. strategy for the region that is designed to deal with 
Iran's destabilizing activity.
    Obviously, with the windfall cash they are about to have 
some $140 billion, and that does not count the renewal of their 
oil production. We need to have some type of plan to deal with 
their potential activity, nefarious activity especially.
    Given their track record, we can see these funds could go 
to sponsor terror, purchase additional advanced weapons like 
the Russian S-300 that was just done--that deal was just done, 
all of which threatens stability in the region.
    Simply put, we just need a plan, and that is what this 
does. And I will speak to the second in a second.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir?
    Senator Johnson. I have a second-degree amendment to 
Senator Perdue's amendment, and it really speaks to what we 
just went through with the Iranian deal or the Iranian--what 
was your bill called again?
    The Chairman.  It was a good one.
    Senator Johnson. Whatever. [Laughter.]
    Senator Kaine. Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
    Senator Johnson. There you go. Bingo.
    Senator Kaine. Of 2015.
    Senator Johnson. I was definitely concerned by the fact 
that and I understand the President is in the position where he 
can negotiate these deals. But we pretty well blocked Congress 
out from its what I think certainly is its involvement in terms 
of what a deal actually is.
    I read the Constitution, and I think it was contemplated is 
that deals between international, different nations, I think 
when they are so serious and we have the different 
considerations in the State Department's foreign affairs 
manual, laying out exactly what those considerations are and 
considering whether something should be a treaty, whether 
something, a deal should be considered a congressional 
executive agreement, or simply an executive agreement.
    Now I certainly understand that so many times we have a 
treaty, we have a more robust deal, that the administration 
should certainly be able to enter into just executive 
agreements that are implementing those larger deals. But that 
is not what has been happening. And certainly from the 
standpoint of what is being discussed with Iran, I think it 
rises to a far higher level than just simple executive 
agreement.
    And so, what my amendment would do would just be required--
and by the way, I am asking for my amendment to be called up as 
modified, working with the chairman. I originally was 
contemplating that the administration should have to come to 
Congress before entering into formal negotiations. And working 
with the chairman, this amendment would require the 
administration to come no later than 30 days after they have 
entered into formal negotiations with another nation to consult 
with us in terms of whether that deal should be termed an 
executive agreement, an executive congressional agreement, or a 
treaty.
    And I think it is pretty reasonable. I think it is a 
minimum involvement on the part of Congress in these deals that 
could be pretty significant in terms of our foreign policy and 
our national security.
    So I urge support of my amendment.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Perdue. I am sorry. I have one second to that. 
Should I do it now or after you are done?
    Senator Cardin. You are a second to----
    Senator Perdue. No, mine is second to his.
    Senator Johnson. He is a second to my number 2, and I also 
have a second degree to my number 2.
    Senator Cardin. So far there are two amendments that I want 
to talk about separately. So let me, if I might, take Senator 
Johnson's first and then move on.
    At the chairman's request, several of us have withheld 
amendments to this State Department authorization. I have 
withheld the global Magnitsky bill, which I feel very strongly 
and passionately about. Senator Rubio agrees with me.
    And I think Chairman Corker is correct. That should be 
considered as a separate bill. We have already talked about 
some other issues that should be considered as separate 
legislation.
    Dealing with the relationship between the President and 
Congress on the power of the President in his negotiations is a 
controversial subject that needs to be aired on the floor--in 
our committee and on the floor of the United States Senate as 
an independent bill and not in a State Department authorization 
bill. So for process reasons, this may not be elevated to the 
same thing as the AUMF, but let me tell you something, the 
relationship between the executive and legislative branches on 
the prerogatives of the President is an extremely not only 
controversial, but an extremely interesting subject that will, 
I am sure, invoke some debate on all sides.
    And I know that any President will have issues with how we 
interact into those negotiations. Putting that on top of the 
fact that we are in the midst of negotiations on an agreement 
that we have already weighed in on, the nuclear agreement, the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, I think this will 
also be misconstrued.
    So for all those reasons, I think that this not only should 
not be on this bill, I think it not only needs separate 
negotiations. But if it got onto this bill, I think it would 
sidetrack the State Department authorization bill, and I would 
encourage the committee to reject the second-degree amendment 
or urge my colleague to withdraw it.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond? I think 
this is entirely appropriate to be put on this State Department 
authorization bill. When you look at the foreign affairs manual 
of the State Department and it is listing the considerations 
whether a deal between two nations should be a treaty, a 
congressional executive agreement, or an executive agreement, 
it talks about the administration's consultation with Congress 
in terms of that determination.
    Now what happened in the Iranian deal is I do not believe 
we were properly consulted until way, way too far into the 
process. So, again, this is just really confirming what the 
State Department's own foreign affairs manual states in terms 
of consultation with Congress in terms of what the deal should 
really be.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman? Particularly speaking on 
behalf of several of our colleagues who are trying to become 
President, let me just give the other view on this for one 
moment. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  They would appreciate it.
    Senator Cardin. Not all are here to defend themselves. Some 
are here to defend themselves, but they are not all here to 
defend themselves.
    Let me just point out about the President has certain 
prerogatives as President of the United States. Yes, we at 
times delegate responsibility to the President. And when we do 
that, we have to be clear.
    Trade promotional authority delegates responsibility to the 
President, and we are very clear what we expect in the 
delegation of that authority. But as we recently saw with the 
Supreme Court decision 6-3 on foreign policy as to how much 
Congress can interfere with the President--I do not necessarily 
agree with that decision, but it is the decision of the Supreme 
Court. I think we have to be very careful as we enter into the 
prerogatives of the executive branch.
    I might agree with my colleague from Wisconsin that there 
are parameters that we should set in this regard, but I know I 
need to have a lot more information before I am prepared to act 
on that because there are all types of executive agreements 
that are entered into routinely that are critically important 
to this country and the security of this country.
    And we have one President. We have 535 members of Congress. 
And I think we have to be very careful that we do not weaken 
our presidency. And I know that is not the intention of my 
colleague, but this is not an easy subject for us to be engaged 
with and requires a serious debate on its own merits and should 
not be a second-degree amendment to an amendment I also have 
problems with on the State Department authorization.
    The Chairman.  If I could? Look, I know this does not rise 
quite to the level of the War Powers Act or something like 
this, but I think--I know you had significant concerns during 
the Iran Review Act debate, and I do think this is a worthy 
thing for us to take up.
    I wonder if we agreed to have a hearing after we finished 
reviewing the Iran bill, if one is consummated, so later this 
fall if we had a hearing on this topic and agreed to look at it 
and really try to define that more fully, if that would be 
something that would be acceptable. So we really do have the 
debate and discussion because I think you raise some 
interesting issues. It is an important issue for us to take up. 
It is central to our responsibility relative to the executive 
branch.
    Senator Johnson. No, with that commitment, I will defer, 
and I will withdraw the amendment.
    But again, just to clarify, this does not impede on the 
administration's prerogatives whatsoever or their power. This 
is just asking them to actually formally consult with us as 
their own State Department foreign affairs manual tells them to 
do. So this is just really, you know, simply asking them to 
follow their own foreign affairs manual.
    So, but no, I appreciate that, and I will withdraw it as a 
result.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Very good. Yes, sir?
    We still have a--we still have another, the second degree. 
Is it okay if we move that, or do you want to speak to this?
    Senator Menendez. No, I want to speak to Senator Perdue's 
amendment. Is that still pending?
    Senator Perdue. Let me put the second. It is very minor, 
and then we can--but the second degree only requests that the 
Secretary of State would present a report to Congress within 60 
days of any nuclear agreement. That is all the second-degree 
amendment was.
    The Chairman.  Say that again.
    Senator Perdue. The first degree requires that the 
Secretary of State or the State Department to provide a 
strategy, a Middle East strategy post Iran nuclear deal. The 
second degree just stipulates that it needs to be dealt with in 
60 days, submitted to Congress.
    The Chairman.  Okay. You want to speak to both?
    Senator Menendez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, let me say--and I 
appreciate Senator Johnson--to start, I agree with Senator 
Cardin, the ranking member, about the scope of presidential 
prerogatives and how one deals with that. And I think that that 
is an incredibly important balance, but one in which, you know, 
I may have a little more forward leaning view, regardless of 
which President it is, about how far those prerogatives go 
versus congressional prerogatives.
    But I agree that getting it right is incredibly important. 
So I appreciate that that is not the subject of the moment.
    But I do want to commend Senator Perdue on the essence of 
his amendment. You know, regardless of our different views that 
exist about Iran's nuclear portfolio and how that is addressed, 
there is a world beyond Iran's nuclear portfolio that we should 
clearly be dealing with and that we should have a strategy for 
in the expectation of an agreement that ultimately will unlock 
resources to the government of Iran.
    Now part of that list of issues of a strategy is how do you 
deal with Iran's advancement of terrorism? How do you deal with 
Iran's hegemonic interests and pursuit throughout the region--
in Iraq, in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Syria? How do you deal with 
its human rights violations? How do you deal with its advancing 
missile technology issues?
    There is a lot in which we have a national security 
interest as it relates to Iraq outside of the nuclear 
portfolio, and it would have been my hope that, in fact, we 
already would have a concurrent strategy as we aspire to a 
nuclear agreement.
    But certainly if that does not exist, and I do not get the 
sense that it exists, then we certainly should have a strategy 
being developed in order to ensure that the other elements of 
our relationship with Iran and the challenges they pose to our 
national security interests are being pursued.
    So in that light, I certainly appreciate the Senator's 
effort here, and believe we need to get there. Whether it is on 
this amendment or not, we need to get there sooner rather than 
later.
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir?
    Senator Cardin. Bob, I think the second degree amendment 
clarifies the first degree amendment. I do not think there is 
any problem with the second degree amendment, just timing for 
submitting for submitting the report.
    Senator Menendez. Right.
    Senator Cardin. So I think we dispose of that pretty 
quickly. And let me talk to the underlying amendment, and I 
agree with the substance of this. My preference would be it not 
be included in the State Department authorization, and I will 
say for two reasons. And I could not agree more with the 
substance, though. I agree that we have to have from the 
administration working with them a strategy of what happens if 
there is a successful agreement with Iran and they are 
prevented from having a nuclear weapon, we know that as a 
consequence there is going to be a release of certain sanction 
relief, which is going to give them certain capacities that we 
have to know how we are going to deal with that--with those 
risks. So I think that is--Senator Perdue is absolutely 
correct.
    I do have a--you might be the most optimistic person on 
this committee because you are assuming that this is going to 
be enacted into law before the end of this month, so I 
congratulate you on your optimism here. I think that this 
particular bill, whether it is a freestanding bill, State 
Department reauthorization, or part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act, will occur after there is an Iranian 
agreement, if there is an Iranian agreement. And, therefore, we 
need to act before we get the administration engaged with us, 
and Senator Corker and I are doing that.
    That is one of the reasons if you look at our work schedule 
at this time, it is very much aimed at recognizing one of three 
things are going to happen. We are going to get an agreement 
that we all think is good, that it is good and we go forward. 
What do we do then? We get an agreement we do not like, what 
action do we take, or we do not get an agreement at all, which 
is also possible. And we have to be prepared as a committee and 
as a Congress to take action in any one of those three cases.
    So I think what you are suggesting makes sense. I just 
believe that it is somewhat--I look for a different vehicle, 
maybe a letter that we send or maybe some action taken by our 
committee. I just think putting it in the State Department 
Authorization Act is probably not the best place to put this 
considering the timing, what is going on. And also, I think, 
just even putting anything in on the Iranian negotiations gets 
people's suspicions up. So I would encourage you to withdraw, 
but if you do both, I just think it is not the right place to 
put it.
    The Chairman.  I do not understand it to be--I hate to use 
this word--in the category of negating support on the----
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Chairman.  Okay. It is your call.
    Senator Perdue. I will call for a vote.
    The Chairman.  Any other discussion? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment before us first is a second 
degree voice vote if that is okay.
    All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Is a voice vote okay on the second one?
    Senator Perdue. Yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. The base amendment is before us now.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment carries, and it will be a part 
of the base bill.
    Any other--yes, sir? Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up 
amendment--Menendez Amendment Number 4. Maybe you should run 
for president and join the crowd. Let me say that we spent a 
lot of time under the chair's leadership on the question of 
modern day slavery. We spent a lot of time on the floor of the 
United States Senate as it relates to human trafficking and 
modern day slavery.
    And part of modern day slavery is forced labor and labor 
bondage, and in that regard I think it is important what the 
amendment calls for is an assessment on where Labor attaches 
would be most useful. I was a strong advocate for the placement 
of the Labor attache at our embassy in Bangladesh in the 
aftermath of the Rana Plaza tragedy which killed hundreds of 
people simply because they were working in conditions and did 
not have the right to say anything about their conditions that 
ultimately led to that tragedy and followed on with other 
tragedies.
    And that attache from the Department of Labor has performed 
very well, and has greatly enhanced our ability to promote 
labor rights and push the Bangladeshi government on reforms in 
a way that we would not have had but for that attaches help.
    So this is basically an opportunity to take an assessment 
of where in the world, based upon our own State Department's 
reports in terms of its human rights violations report that has 
elements of labor violations in terms of our own effort on 
modern day slavery, to say this is something that in certain 
parts of the world having a labor attache would make a lot of 
sense. And for that reason, I would urge adoption of the 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  I would like to speak to it. First of all, I 
appreciate your concerns about people working all over the 
world. We have concerns about the expansive nature of this and 
what it might mean in embassies and countries around the world. 
So with great respect, I am going to oppose the amendment, and 
I know that there are significant concerns by many on our side 
of the aisle, and some are major. So I do not know if there is 
any other discussion, if anyone else would like to speak to 
this.
    Senator Cardin. Just I want to be in support--I support 
Senator Menendez for the reasons he just said. I think it is 
important for the U.S. as we are getting more engaged, 
certainly economically, to do what we can to promote labor 
rights not only from the human rights point of view, but also 
from the economic point of view.
    Senator Menendez. I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  Recorded vote? If the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul? [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are nine, and the nays 
are nine.
    The Chairman.  The amendment does not carry, but thank you 
for your efforts.
    I would like to offer an amendment, just join everyone else 
in doing the same. This is Rubio Amendment Number 8. 
[Laughter.]
    Voice. Rubio is doing very well for not being here.
    The Chairman.  He is the most active member here today. It 
requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all 
bilateral human rights bylaws. I do not think it is 
controversial. I think that people on both sides of the aisle 
seem to support it, and I would be glad to take any comments.
    Senator Cardin. Just one moment. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir?
    Senator Cardin. I am going to ask unanimous consent that we 
eliminate--if you read this, there are numerous requirements 
here. I would just ask that one be eliminated. That is under 
the content we eliminate the third, which is the list of all 
bureaus, and officials, and departments that have participated 
in each of the bylaws. We already have a list of all the 
bylaws--human rights bylaws, a list of all the commitments, a 
list of all of the countries that have refused, and an 
assessment of the status of each.
    But I would ask that we--by consent that we eliminate 
(b)(3), a list of all bureaus and officials of the Department 
of State that have participated in each of the bylaws.
    The Chairman.  On behalf of Senator Rubio, I have no 
objection. His staff does not----
    Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I have to say--I will say this 
in a sweet way. This is more like a presidential speech that a 
president would do all of this. This is such bureaucracy and 
reporting. It would take people forever. Every contact on this 
and the writing. You know, frankly, I would like our people to 
be working person to person, not sitting around writing novels 
about it.
    So I just say with all due respect, I wish he was here 
because maybe we could work on this. But I am just--well, I'm 
just going to say no because I think it is a bunch of 
bureaucratic reports. I would rather have results. And I think 
it could be worked on and make it better, but this is just so--
yes. It would be like us telling each other how to run our 
office, and who has to write what, and reporting who writes 
what report.
    It is just something that I just think is--I get--I love 
the idea that he is--his heart is in the right place, but this 
is a nightmare scenario. And maybe he can just wait until we 
get to the floor and maybe we can all work together for 
something more streamlined and not so onerous, not so time 
consuming. You have to hire people to do all this stuff. I do 
not know. I like the idea, but it is just too detailed.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make a 
more general point because I think we are sort of getting to 
the tipping point on the number of reports that we are 
requiring of the Department of State. And I think it is just 
important to remember that we are now up to, I think, several 
dozen new reporting requirements in this bill that we are 
requiring of the Department of State. And by the way, if we do 
not address the BCA and sequestration, they are getting 
potentially billions of dollars less in funding than they did 
last year.
    And so, there may be a lot of merit in this, but I just 
think it is important for us to step back and recognize what we 
are asking of the State Department with a dozen crises of 
immediate imperative around the globe. This is just sort of 
getting to the breaking point in terms of what we are requiring 
of them with less resources than they had last year with none 
of these new requirements.
    The Chairman.  Senator Rubio has heard you loud and clear. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  And is willing to work with us on this 
matter and withdraw it. This shows how ambidextrous he is. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  But with that--with that I hate to offer 
Corker 6---- [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing.] Which does require reporting on 
the approval of export licenses and letters to request the 
assistance of the government of Ukraine, so it is not 
bureaucracy. It just says it is a list of those letters. And, 
again, it is very simple, and I would ask that my modification 
be put in place to add TASC and HASC----
    Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is fine, and I 
think if--maybe Mr. Rubio could take care of it for you since 
you are working so closely with him. But, no, I think this is 
very straightforward. I do not have any problem.
    The Chairman.  Are there any objections? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I think it is very non-controversial. I 
think multiple people wanted this to occur, so without 
objection we will have a voice vote.
    All in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment carries.
    Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. I have an amendment at the desk. It is 
Markey Number 1, marked first degree. It is dealing with the 
State Department's Bureau of African Affairs.
    Voice. Speak up a little bit, Ed.
    Senator Markey. I have been working with Senator Flake on 
this, and it would be to request a plan from the State 
Department on how it would put together a plan for the African 
Affairs Department. It has--it is twice--it has a mandate which 
is twice as large as the other regional bureaus. It has ample 
staff. And so, my amendment is intended to just ask for the 
plan, what do they need, you know, to get this job done as 
Africa is exploding in terms of responsibilities for the State 
Department. So I request it be----
    The Chairman.  And that is modified. Is that correct?
    Senator Markey. As modified by Senator----
    The Chairman.  And just for what it is worth based on the 
comments that were made, this one has been streamlined to take 
out all of those things that people--many of those things that 
people would consider to be bureaucratic and time consuming for 
the State Department, so we appreciate that very much. And if 
there is no further discussion, we will voice vote it.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The amendment carries. Thank you.
    Are we--have our voices been heard?
    Senator Flake. I have got Rubio--[Laughter.]
    Senator Perdue. I have a Barrasso. No, I am sorry. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Flake. It is not as modified? We are doing it as 
second degree?
    Senator Boxer. We did it----
    The Chairman.  No, we modified it.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman? I have Rubio Number 11. He 
does not know about it. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Very ubiquitous. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. So are there--if there are no further 
amendments, I would--do we need a motion for a roll call vote 
on final passage? Okay. I assume we do not--let us have a roll 
call.
    Voice. On the motion to report.
    The Chairman.  Motion to report to the full Senate the 
State Department authorization bill, as amended. I want to 
thank everybody for working with us the way they have. People 
have put a lot of effort into this, and I think it is going to 
bear a lot of fruit, especially over time as we build on this. 
You have all been incredible to work with. You have been very 
patient as we have tried to push through, and I just want to 
thank everybody for their cooperation. Senator Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. I apologize. I just have to make this 
statement. I really am encouraged by this committee, 
bipartisan. We saw it with the Iran deal, and I saw it again 
today. But I like the sense of urgency in this room right now. 
I am saying this to the staff and everybody else. We pushed 
hard to get this done today. We are not all happy with 
everything, but I just really appreciate that. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Well, thanks for your leadership, Senator 
Kaine's leadership on the subcommittee and making sure that we 
got to this place. Thank everybody on the committee for being 
involved in the way that they have. Hopefully we can cause this 
to become law through the NDAA. If not, we will find another 
vehicle to cause that to occur or a standalone, and then we 
will move to the issues that have been brought up today.
    Ranking member, our calendar is pretty well filled for the 
rest of the year with all of the agreements we have made today.
    Senator Cardin. I know. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  We do thank everybody for pushing the issues 
that--if we could----
    Senator Cardin. I am just happy that the members of this 
committee do not serve on any other committee because we need 
your full-time participation. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Would you like to say anything else?
    Senator Cardin. No, no. Just, again, I want to thank all 
the committee members for their cooperation. I am very proud of 
the final results here, and I just thank you all for your 
cooperation.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    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. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk. The ayes are 19, the noes are zero.
    The Chairman.  All right, the ayes have it. I ask unanimous 
consent that the staff be able to make technical corrections to 
make it comply appropriately, technical and conforming changes. 
Without objection. Thank you very much.


    [Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 25, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker, Risch, Flake, Gardner, Perdue, 
Isakson, Cardin, Menendez, Coons, Murphy, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman. We thank our witnesses for being here. We 
have a business meeting that will take just a moment. I think 
you are all aware of that.
    We do not have enough members yet to take action, but what 
I thought I would do to speed things along is to begin 
discussing what we are going to do, to get that out of the way. 
And I want to thank all the members who are here.
    The business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order. We have a number of items on the 
agenda today, including five pieces of legislation and a number 
of nominations, in addition to moving forward on resolutions 
that are bringing attention to important concerns like the 
growing number of displaced people around the world and 
continued threats to a free and independent press in many 
countries.
    I am pleased that we were able to work with some of our 
colleagues to consider legislation they previously sought to 
include in the NDAA.
    It also appears we will be able to move closer to having a 
confirmed legal adviser at the State Department, as well as 
several new ambassadors.
    I want to thank my colleagues for helping the committee 
work through these nominees in an appropriate fashion and to 
allow us to take these steps to move forward today.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for any comments.
    Senator Cardin?

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    I very much appreciate your cooperation in the agenda we 
have today.
    Let me start with the nominations, if I might, because you 
have accommodated the full committee consideration of nominees 
that were heard as recently as this week, and I thank you for 
that. These are career diplomats who are heading toward 
important countries, and our action today will allow us to have 
those ambassadors in place I think at an earlier stage. And I 
thank you very much for accommodating the full committee 
consideration of these important positions, and also the 
adviser to the Department of State, Brian James Egan, and I 
thank you for including those, and also Janet Yellen in her 
capacity to be the U.S. alternate governor of the International 
Monetary Fund.
    In addition, we do have some resolutions and legislation 
that are before us. I particularly want to thank you for 
accommodating the World Refugee Day in a timely way. With 
Senator Rubio, I introduced this resolution.
    I would just point out to the members of this committee, 
the number of refugees today--I took to the floor of the Senate 
to talk about this--we are at the levels of after World War II. 
This is a shocking number, 60 million people are displaced 
today. And those numbers are growing, they are not getting 
smaller, because of the ongoing conflicts.
    I think all of us have seen the direct impact. We have been 
to Jordan. We have been to Turkey. We know what the refugees 
are causing in other countries. And this is a humanitarian 
crisis, and it is a regional stability crisis. And I thank you 
for allowing us to act on that resolution today.
    I am also pleased we are acting on the resolutions to 
reaffirm freedom of the press and recognizing those who are 
involved; the risk factors to ensuring the safety and security 
of the Iranian dissidents; and to deal with Srebrenica 10th 
anniversary, that resolution.
    In regards to the resolution and issues in Srebrenica, 
there will be an amendment offered that I will call up on 
behalf of Senator Shaheen that I think strengthens it. And I 
will ask consideration of it.
    The Chairman.  Very good. In order, again, to move along 
and be ready when we have our 10th person here, I am going to 
go ahead and mention the nominees.
    I guess I actually cannot move to proceed. I will wait just 
one second.
    In the interest of time, I would ask the committee to 
proceed en bloc, voice vote, in consideration of the eight 
nominations before the committee, the Honorable Janet Yellen to 
be the U.S. alternate governor to the IMF, Mr. Brian Egan to be 
the legal adviser to the State Department, Ms. Jennifer Galt to 
be ambassador to Mongolia, the Honorable Glyn Davies to be 
ambassador to Thailand, Mr. William Heidt to be ambassador to 
Mongolia, Mr. Atul Keshap to be ambassador to Sri Lanka and 
Moldives, Ms. Alaina Teplitz to be ambassador to Nepal, the 
Honorable David Hale to be the ambassador to Pakistan. I want 
to thank all these nominees for their willingness to serve in 
these positions.
    Senator Cardin, I know you have addressed this. Do you have 
anything else you would wish to say?
    Senator Cardin. Let us move them.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Is there any Senator who would like to speak to these 
nominees?
    If not, if there is no further discussion, is there a 
motion to approve all of these en bloc?
    Senator Perdue. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  There is a motion and a second. So moved and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the nominations.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    Hearing none, the ayes have it. The nominations are 
recommended to the full Senate.
    Next we will consider S.R. 204, a resolution recognizing 
the occasion of World Refugee Day. We thank Senator Cardin for 
bringing this resolution to the committee. As we have seen, the 
international systems for addressing the plight of refugees and 
other displaced persons have been overwhelmed by the conflicts 
in Syria and Iraq, in particular, but the other situations that 
Senator Cardin notes, such as in Ukraine, the Mediterranean, or 
Nigeria, also need to speak to this crisis.
    World Refugee Day calls upon us to reflect on what more can 
and should be done in the face of these overwhelming needs.
    Senator Cardin, would you like to make any additional 
comments?
    Senator Cardin. I have already commented about it. Again, I 
thank you for bringing this forward. This is an area that will 
require our committee's attention in order to deal with this 
humanitarian crisis.
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to approve this 
resolution?
    Senator Perdue. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S.R. 204.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    Hearing none, the ayes have it. The resolution is approved.
    Next we will consider S.R. 207, a resolution recognizing 
threats to the freedom of press and expression around the 
world. Reaffirming the freedom of the press is a priority in 
efforts of the United States Government to promote democracy 
and good governance.
    We thank Senators Casey and Rubio for bringing this 
resolution to the committee on the occasion of World Press Day. 
We do well remember that journalists face real threats from 
criminal groups and conflicts and, in a number of countries, 
their own governments.
    Senator Cardin, would you like to make any additional 
comments?
    Senator Cardin. I have commented about this. And again, I 
thank you for bringing this forward.
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to approve the 
legislation?
    Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, certainly, I strongly 
support this. And when Reporters Without Borders talk about 69 
journalists who were killed in 2014 in connection with their 
collection and dissemination of news and information, it is 
incredibly important.
    I just point out that sometimes when we pass resolutions 
like this in broad strokes, we do not think about the specifics 
of where this is meaningful. It is meaningful in many parts of 
the world, including in Cuba, where, in fact, independent 
journalists and bloggers are consistently arrested and jailed 
simply because of the views they express.
    So as people in the Senate seek to visit Cuba and to change 
our policies, and I know they will be strongly supportive of 
this resolution, I would hope that they would take the time and 
the opportunities to meet with independent journalists, human 
rights activists, political dissidents.
    The problem is that, very often, if you do that, then you 
do not get to meet with the high regime officials. And that 
seems to be the choice, and people make the choice, therefore, 
not to pursue human rights activists, independent journalists, 
and bloggers.
    So on the day that we are going to recognize World Press 
Freedom Day, it is important to actually more than cast a vote. 
It is important to actually act in a way in which we are 
promoting global press freedom.
    The Chairman.  I thank the Senator for making that point. 
It is a fact, and I appreciate you highlighting that. And as we 
move ahead, it is, certainly, something that we need to 
continue to be cognizant of.
    I will stop right there. I know that we are going to have 
other discussions about this soon.
    Would anyone else like to speak to this resolution?
    Is there a motion to approve it?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is a motion to approve S.R. 207.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it. The resolution is approved.
    Our last resolution today is a resolution expressing the 
sense of the Senate regarding Srebrenica.
    We thank Senator Cardin for bringing this resolution to the 
committee. It is important never to forget what took place 
there.
    I commend Senator Cardin. He took a leadership role 
regarding this massacre and has a sustained commitment toward 
making sure we remember it.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments that you would 
like to make regarding this?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for bringing 
this forward.
    It has been 20 years since nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys 
were murdered at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs during the 
Bosnian war. The Srebrenica massacre must be always remembered, 
and I appreciate your willingness to consider this resolution 
acknowledging the 20th anniversary of the massacre.
    Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment that I would like to 
call up at the appropriate time by Senator Shaheen that 
encourages a more active U.S. role in the Western Balkans and 
calls for a permanent role for the International Commission for 
Missing People at The Hague.
    I believe this amendment is constructive, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to accept it.
    The Chairman.  So you are bringing up the Shaheen amendment 
for her.
    Is there a second?
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question before us is a motion to approve the Shaheen 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it, and the Shaheen amendment is 
agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the legislation, 
as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S.R. 211, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it. The resolution is approved.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I should have said that 
Senator Coons is added as a cosponsor.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Duly noted.
    Next we will turn to S. 1643, the Ensuring the Safety and 
Security of Iranian Dissidents and Iraq Act of 2015.
    With the current situation in Iraq as tumultuous as it is, 
a reporting requirement on Camp Liberty will be helpful to 
understand the current relationship between the dissidents 
housed there and the Iraqi Government. The more information we 
can obtain regarding the current situation in Iraq, the better.
    The bill is originally a Senator Blunt amendment to the 
NDAA. Although we approved the policy, we did not clear it as 
an amendment because it did not come through the committee. I 
hope we can pass this bill out of committee today, which we 
will consider with an amendment that I have offered with 
Senator Blunt's support.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments?
    Senator Cardin. No. Again, I thank you for bringing this 
forward.
    The Chairman.  Anyone else?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, this is something I have 
pursued for quite some time, and it is important in the context 
of whether the United States, when it goes into a country and 
says that it is going to do certain things, actually follows 
through, because then the message globally is, in this case, 
the residents now at Camp Liberty were told, ``Give up your 
weapons, and we will protect you by our military.'' And they 
were given a document to that effect. And then, of course, they 
did that.
    They, actually, had provided us with information about the 
hearing that you are about to have on Iran on one of the 
facilities we did not know about.
    And at the end of the day, then we left them on their own, 
and many of them were killed. That is just fundamentally wrong.
    So while I would have preferred seeing the certification, 
because we need to be serious about our commitment to 
individuals, so that when we go into another conflict or 
another place in the world, people will actually give up their 
arms or, in the case of Ukraine, give up their nuclear weapons, 
and then ultimately believe that we are going to do what we say 
we are going to do.
    So I support the resolution. I think it is incredibly 
important, and I look forward to an opportunity in which the 
United States shows leadership on this by accepting some of the 
residents of Camp Liberty as well, as we try to resettle them 
so that they can safely be out of Iraq once and for all.
    The Chairman.  I could not agree more. I have met with many 
of the families affected, and I think when we send signals like 
this where we do not follow through on commitments that have 
been made, and I could list a series of those in recent times, 
it does harm us. It, certainly, harms the people that we have 
made commitments to. And with many of the complexities that we 
already have in the world, it makes them even more difficult to 
resolve.
    So I thank you for bringing continual attention to this as 
chairman and as ranking member, and, certainly, I support this 
very strongly.
    I do have an amendment.
    Does anyone else want to speak to this legislation?
    I do have a second degree. Does anyone else have a second 
degree?
    If not, I would entertain a motion that we consider the 
Corker amendment.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Perdue. Second.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Corker 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it. The Corker amendment is agreed 
to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the legislation, 
as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1643, as 
amended. That is the question.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it.
    We have one more piece of legislation. This is the Collins 
amendment to the NDAA. It is my understanding that there is 
still a one-sentence disagreement. I know Senator Flake and 
Senator Cardin have been working on this.
    It is my sense that, based on where we are today, we want 
to hold this over until the next meeting. I do hate to get the 
wrath of Senator Collins on this over the next couple of weeks, 
but I understand that is my job. But I do hope we will be able 
to work out this one-sentence disagreement in the interim and, 
hopefully, speedily pass this through and, hopefully, pass it 
on the floor by unanimous consent.
    I think that concludes our business for the business 
meeting.
    I ask unanimous consent the staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With that, the committee will stand adjourned, as it 
relates to the business meeting.


    [Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 29, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in, 
Room 116, The Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Flake, Gardner, 
Perdue, Isakson, Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Coons, Udall, 
Kaine, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. I am going to go ahead 
and get started with the ranking member. When we have enough 
people here to vote, we can.
    We have several items on the agenda today, including two 
pieces of legislation, a number of nominations, and a Foreign 
Service officer list.
    We will be able to move forward on S. 1632, a bill by 
Senator Collins to require a regional strategy to address the 
threat posed by Boko Haram. I appreciate her and the efforts of 
Senators Cardin and Flake to work out an agreement, since it 
was held over from our last business meeting. So thank you both 
for that.
    Also, I appreciate Senator Menendez's work on S. 1875, the 
Afghanistan Accountability Act. This legislation seeks to 
ensure that our assistance to Afghanistan is impactful and not 
counterproductive in inviting corruption. I think we all know 
the long history of counterproductive efforts.
    We also will consider S. 284, the Global Magnitsky Human 
Rights Accountability Act, legislation long championed by 
Senator Cardin.
    And on all things human rights, thank you for your efforts 
in that regard.
    We will consider a number of important nominees, including 
multiple ambassadors, the nominee for Assistant Secretary for 
Consular Affairs, and the assistant administrator and 
administrator for USAID. We will also consider a Foreign 
Service officer list.
    I want to thank my colleagues for helping the committee 
work these nominations in an appropriate fashion.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for any comments.
    Senator Cardin?

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first, thank you very much. 
As soon as we get the required numbers, please let me know, and 
we will move for action.
    I want to thank you particularly for including the nominees 
that are on this agenda for action by this committee. You are 
allowing us to move promptly on important executive positions 
with the advice of the committee, and I thank you very much.
    I particularly want to acknowledge Gayle Smith, the 
administrator for USAID, which we have had discussions about 
the importance of having a confirmed head of USAID during this 
critical time.
    So I thank you very much for including all these nominees.
    I want to mention the Global Magnitsky Human Rights 
Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues on the 
committee, Senators Shaheen, Rubio, Markey, and Coons. I also 
want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Senators McCain, 
Durbin, Blumenthal, Wicker, Kirk, and Cruz. And I could mention 
many others who have worked on the Magnitsky accountability 
act.
    I think you are all familiar with how this legislation is 
known globally by those who stand up for basic rights, and the 
Magnitsky accountability act has worked very well in regard to 
Russia.
    This legislation will make it global, allowing for us to 
take action against those who have committed violations of 
human rights, to be denied our banking system, which they use 
to further their own various acts, and the right and privilege 
to visit our country.
    It is also the right balance between executive and 
legislative. It allows the executive to make the decision, but 
we have the opportunity to bring forward particular names in 
the right process for review by the executive branch.
    So I thank you very much for including that legislation in 
today's markup.
    I also want to thank you for the way in which the staffs 
have worked out the language on the Boko Haram legislation by 
Senator Collins. I am glad we are able to move forward on this. 
You and I have sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to 
engage the new Nigerian administration, and this bill would 
further that effort in pointing out the horrible tragedies. 
Over 13,000 Nigerians have been killed, and 1.5 million have 
been displaced. And it needs the spotlight of the international 
community.
    Lastly, let me thank Senator Menendez for the legislation 
he has brought forward on accountability in Afghanistan. This 
speaks to the congressional concerns about Afghanistan and 
provides the authorization for us to be partners in providing 
good governance in Afghanistan. And I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    What I might do just to move things along, if it is all 
right, is go ahead and name the nominations, so when people are 
here, we do not have to go through the long list, unless 
anybody objects.
    When we move to consider these en bloc, these will be the 
nominees we are looking at: the Hon. Michelle Thoren Bond to be 
the Assistant Secretary of State, Consular Affairs; Dr. Sarah 
Mendelson to be representative of the U.S. on the Economic and 
Social Council of the U.N., and alternate representative of the 
U.S. to the General Assembly of the U.N.; Ms. Sheila Gwaltney 
to be U.S. ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic; Mr. Perry L. 
Holloway to be the ambassador to the Co-operative Republic of 
Guyana; Ms. Laura Farnsworth Dogu to be the ambassador to the 
Republic of Nicaragua; Mr. Peter F. Mulrean to be ambassador to 
the Republic of Haiti; Mr. Paul Jones to be ambassador to the 
Republic of Poland; Ms. Gayle Smith to be the administrator of 
the United States Agency for International Development; Ms. 
Kathleen Doherty to be the ambassador to the Republic of 
Cyprus; Dr. James Melville to be ambassador to the Republic of 
Estonia; Mr. Samuel Heins to be ambassador to the Kingdom of 
Norway; the Hon. Hans Klemm to be the ambassador to Romania; 
Mr. Thomas Melia to be assistant administrator of USAID.
    I want to thank all these nominees for their willingness to 
serve our country in these positions.
    I do not know if Senator Cardin has any comments?
    Senator Cardin. Once again, I thank you for including all 
those nominations. I think there is also a Foreign Service list 
that we will be taking up, and each one has gone through the 
vetting process in this committee.
    And I support each one of these nominees and urge our 
colleagues to also support their favorable consideration on the 
Senate floor.
    The Chairman.  At this moment, we will pause, if someone 
would like to speak.
    Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Number one, I intend to support all the 
nominees. I do have a concern with our nominee to be the 
ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus, in terms of answers that 
I received.
    I am not questioning the individual's qualifications. I am 
concerned about the answers. I know the answers were 
constrained by the State Department as a whole, so I am going 
to move the process along, and I will not oppose or ask it to 
be held over, but I reserve my rights on the floor as it 
relates to that nomination.
    Secondly, I appreciate your listing and Senator Cardin's 
support of the Afghanistan Accountability Act. I think after so 
many lives and national treasure, and the continuing expense of 
the U.S. taxpayer dollars to get the type of accountability 
that we want in Afghanistan, it is critically important.
    I think we have a new partner there. The early signs are 
promising. So we need to build upon those signs.
    So I appreciate the chair and ranking member's support.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Any other comments? Comments on any topic are welcome. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me say I know that you 
and I have talked about a House bill that is coming over here, 
Megan's Law, to make it international, something we both 
support. I understand this week we got some language from 
Senator Shelby, who has some interest in that legislation. We 
also have heard from the administration.
    And I am hopeful we can resolve the differences in drafts, 
so we can take it up at our next meeting, which I hope will be 
before the recess.
    The Chairman.  I do, too.
    Okay, I want to thank everybody for coming. I know there is 
a lot going on. Once we finish this meeting, I know there is a 
second vote, and then we plan to convene the next meeting on 
Iran. I am hopeful it will be well-attended. I think we have 
had several briefings.
    We have had some preliminary conversations. Again, I thank 
everybody for being here.
    Is there a motion to move all of the nominees that we have 
listed en bloc?
    Senator Kaine. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    Does anybody want to be listed as a ``no'' on any of the 
nominees? None, okay.
    The ayes have it. They are all nominated and moved to the 
floor.
    Next, we will move the USAID and Foreign Service list. I 
support these appointments and would like to thank all these 
officers for their service.
    Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Likewise.
    The Chairman.  There are only three that have been held for 
additional questions. There is a large number that we are 
moving. Does anybody wish to speak to this?
    If there is no further discussion, do we have a motion?
    Senator Cardin. I move the approval.
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the approval of the Foreign Service 
list, as modified.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it. The appointments are agreed to.
    Now we will consider S. 1632, a bill to require a regional 
strategy to address the threat posed by Boko Haram, legislation 
that has been introduced by Senator Collins.
    And I appreciate, as I mentioned earlier, her pursuing 
regular order for its consideration before the committee of 
jurisdiction. This is timely legislation in the wake of an 
election in Nigeria that changes the dynamic of cooperation and 
directs the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to 
formulate a strategy to help Nigeria and other regional 
partners address the Boko Haram threat and identify areas of 
cooperation.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments?
    Senator Cardin. I commented earlier. I thank you for 
working out the language so we can move it forward. I am hoping 
we would all support the amended version.
    The Chairman.  Would anyone else like to speak to this 
legislation?
    I would entertain a motion to consider the substitute 
amendment.
    Senator Gardner. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Coons. Seconded.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    The ayes have it. The substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Barrasso. Seconded.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1632, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it. The legislation is amended and agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 1875, the Afghanistan 
Accountability Act, legislation introduced by Senator Menendez.
    This legislation seeks to promote greater effectiveness and 
accountability for U.S. assistance in Afghanistan, including 
strengthening Afghan institutions tasked with reducing 
corruption. I believe it will be an effective tool to improve 
accountability for the considerable sums that remain in the 
pipeline that are likely to continue to be provided to pursue 
our national interests as Afghanistan continues its political 
and security transition.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any additional comments?
    Senator Cardin. As I said earlier, I thank Senator Menendez 
for his leadership on this. This is a very important action by 
Congress, to go on record as to the authorization for our 
partnership with Afghanistan and our expectations.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that Senator 
Boxer is on the floor with the transportation bill, but she has 
an amendment, which I think has been shared with the chair and 
the ranking member----
    The Chairman.  That is correct.
    Senator Menendez.--with reference to making a statement 
that the assistance programs in direct support of Afghan women 
and girls remain a priority for the United States, and I would 
move the amendment on her behalf.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Boxer 
amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it. The Boxer amendment is agreed 
to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1875, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    All opposed?
    The ayes have it.
    Our last piece of legislation is S. 284, the Global 
Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which would 
authorize sanctions against those involved in gross violations 
of human rights and acts of significant corruption. I know this 
is legislation that Senator Cardin has championed, and I 
strongly believe in. Senator Rubio also supports it.
    I appreciate the leadership role that Senator Cardin 
continues to take in focusing on human rights issues around the 
world.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any additional comments?
    Senator Cardin. I have already commented on this, and I 
thank you for accommodating the markup.
    I know Senator Rubio has an amendment. I do not know if it 
is being offered.
    The Chairman.  He is not here, if you want to offer it.
    Senator Cardin. I would be glad to offer it on his behalf. 
I think it strengthens the bill by allowing the appropriate 
secretary that has responsibility in this area in the State 
Department to make recommendations, and I think it strengthens 
the bill.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin is offering the Rubio 
amendment.
    Is there a motion that we consider the Rubio amendment?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Rubio 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    The ayes have it. The Rubio amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 284, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Opposed?
    With that, the ayes have it.
    That completes our committee's business. Thank you all very 
much for being here.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Thank you, all.


    [Whereupon, at 10:22 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 24, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in 
Room S.216 of the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, 
Udall, Kaine, and Markey

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. We only have one item 
on the agenda today--the United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2015.
    The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is 
an important voice for the powerless and the oppressed and a 
tangible expression of our commitment to freedom of religion.
    We thank Senator Cardin and Charlotte Oldham-Moore from his 
staff, Senator Rubio and Elyse Anderson from his staff, and 
Senator Durbin and Joe Zogby from his staff for their work in 
reaching agreement on this bipartisan legislation.
    The Commission's authorization expires on September 30th. 
We understand that this bill will be taken up by the House and 
passed as soon as we are able to approve it by unanimous 
consent.
    Anyone who would like to speak to this legislation? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the legislation? 
[Multiple Senators motion.]
    The Chairman. Is there a second.] [Multiple Senators 
second.]
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve USCIRF 
Reauthorization Act of 2015.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed? [A chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. And with that the AYES have it and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    And that completes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes; without objection, so 
ordered.
    And that with that, without objection, the committee will 
stand adjourned.



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 1, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, 10:35 a.m., in Room 
SD-419, Room 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob 
Corker, chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Flake, Perdue, 
Isakson, Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, 
Murphy, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  I am going to call the business meeting to 
order, and ask Senator Cardin and myself to make our opening 
comments, move them--through them as rapidly as possible so we 
can move on to the other meeting. I want to thank everybody for 
being here.
    So the meeting will come to order.
    On the agenda for today we have a number of nominations, 
including the director of Office to Control and Combat 
Trafficking, with the rank of Ambassador-At-Large, as well as 
over 600 personnel referred to the committee who have been 
nominated for appointment or promotion into and within the 
Foreign Service. I understand many of our colleagues have 
expressed concerns regarding two of the nominees. I want to 
also add we have had numbers of people pressing hard to ensure 
that they get a vote.
    I would suggest the State Department redouble its efforts 
to reach out to members on this committee in a meaningful and 
substantial way in good faith in an effort to attempt to 
address those concerns. And I do want to say that finally 
yesterday the State Department did come over with some 
documentation that one of our members had been requesting, and 
I appreciate that. I think there are a couple of other pieces 
that may be--being pursued at this time, but I would urge the 
State Department, let us get this out of the way and move 
especially one of the nominations on.
    I would like to recognize--with that, I would like to 
recognize Senator Cardin, who I cherish serving with and for 
his comments relative to what is getting ready to happen.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I see 
that we do not have a quorum yet, so let me first thank you. 
And I want to just say publicly as the ranking Democrat on the 
committee, I thank Senator Corker for the manner in which he 
has moved nominations through this committee. We have had 
timely hearings and timely action. There are a few exceptions, 
and we talk about that.
    But he has been very accommodating to our requests, and I 
thank him very much for that. And it is keeping with the 
tradition of this great committee to act timely on the 
nominations from the executive branch, and I thank you. And it 
is true today where we have 13 nominations on our agenda for 
action.
    As Chairman Corker has pointed out, two nominees who were 
originally noticed to be on today's agenda--Jennifer Haverkamp, 
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International 
Environment and Scientific Affairs, and Roberta Jacobson for 
Ambassador of Mexico--will not be voted on in today's meeting.
    I find that regrettable, and I understand there is great 
interest among members for additional information, particularly 
as it relates to Roberta Jacobson. I just wanted to point out 
that in Roberta Jacobson's case, we are talking about a career 
diplomat of the Senior Service--Senior Executive Service. She 
has served, as we all know, as the regional secretary, but she 
has also had direct experience in Mexico, and I do not think 
there is a more qualified person to become ambassador to 
Mexico. She has been on the calendar for about--she has been 
nominated about four months ago.
    In Jennifer Haverkamp's case, this nomination is now about 
nine months old. She is imminently qualified. I could go 
through her qualifications. I will at the next meeting, but let 
me just mention and underscore probably the most important part 
of her qualifications. She is a Marylander, so she shows good 
judgment to live in the State of Maryland. But she is an 
associate professor at Johns Hopkins and worked in the USTR, 
EPA, et cetera.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the constructive 
manner in which you have gotten nominations for both hearings 
and action in this committee. Two nominees, Jennifer Haverkamp 
for Assistant Secretary for the OES Bureau and Roberta Jacobson 
to be ambassador to Mexico, were removed from today's agenda 
late last night with the understanding between Senator Corker 
and me that both of these nominees will be on the next business 
meeting agenda next Thursday.
    I believe that is our understanding, and I would just 
encourage all members to be prepared for next Thursday.
    The Chairman.  Before turning to Senator Shaheen who wants 
to make a comment, that is our understanding. And I think--
look, I am a strong supporter of Roberta, and I think people 
understand that. And at the same time, I know you know that one 
of the reasons we have handled the things we have is what we 
would like is an outcome, not just in the committee, but an 
outcome on the floor. And so, I know I had a long conversation 
with one of our members on this side of the aisle about the 
same thing last night.
    In the other case, on the other nomination, I do fear that 
while I agreed to bring her up next week, and I understand 
somebody may try to hold her over for the next meeting. That is 
everybody's prerogative. I do fear that because work--the 
appropriate work has not been done yet relative to building 
support in the committee, that that could end up being a 
nomination that ends up being a dead end, if you understand 
what I am saying. I am trying to avoid that.
    Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I am 
optimist. I serve in the United States Senate. You have to be 
an optimist.
    The Chairman.  You have to be a few other things, too.
    Senator Cardin. So I am hopeful that between now and next 
Thursday in regards to Jennifer Haverkamp that we will have an 
opportunity for Senators to meet with her and to be able to ask 
questions so that we can hopefully be able to move both 
nominations next week.
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like 
to echo Senator Cardin's comments about the very positive and 
cooperative way in which nominations have moved through this 
committee. I think that is a tribute to you. It is a tribute to 
Senator Cardin and to all of the members.
    I do have a concern, and you suggested that you are 
concerned also about it, about the way in which these 
nominations then have moved to the floor of the Senate. And I 
just have to call attention to one of those nominees who has 
been waiting for four months, and she moved through this 
committee on a voice vote, and that is Gail Smith, who was 
nominated to be the administrator of USAID. And I think at a 
time when we have a refugee crisis around the world, when we 
see all of the conflict areas and the hot spots that USAID is 
very involved in, for us to be sitting on a nominee who is non-
controversial, who went through this committee on a voice vote, 
who has not been able to be brought to the floor because of the 
objections of one of our colleagues over the Iran deal, which 
has already been done and moved forward, is just 
unconscionable.
    And I would hope that we would all work to try and move her 
nomination because we need to get that appointment filled.
    The Chairman.  Yes. So just for what it is worth, I could 
not agree more. I think she is very highly qualified. She moved 
through here very rapidly, and, you know, we had to work out 
a--again, it was a kind of situation where there was some 
concerns, and we were able to resolve those before she came to 
a vote. And, therefore, you are right, there is a member who is 
holding this person up. We continue to have conversations with 
that member.
    Please know that this is--this is not a case where, you 
know, the majority, if you will, is holding up a nominee to 
be--that is qualified.
    Senator Shaheen. I appreciate that.
    The Chairman.  And every Senator, let us face it, has the 
right to be able to do those things. But hopefully we are going 
to make some progress on the hold being lifted and her becoming 
part of leading the USAID office, yes. I am sorry. Senator 
Coons?
    Senator Coons. I just want to echo and support Senator 
Shaheen's comments. I saw and spoke to the nominee over the 
weekend, and just--I literally on the train down from Delaware 
this morning was with a Syrian refugee who has just been 
resettled in the United States, and had an opportunity for a 
heartfelt conversation. The reach and scope of the difficulties 
that USAID could be leading in our response to it continues to 
grow. If there is anything other members of this committee 
could do to help with relieving this one hold, I would welcome 
the chance to do that.
    The Chairman.  And, you know, there is continual efforts to 
make that happen, and I do hope and think that USAID hopefully 
is still functioning, though. And, I mean, I do not want to 
make too big a thing out of this and turn it into something 
that maybe it is not, but I agree with you. We need strong 
leadership there, and I think she would provide that.
    What I would like if it is possible is to have unanimous 
consent for the possibility of a rolling vote so that----
    Senator Cardin. We have enough for a quorum, but not for a 
vote yet. But, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would concur in your 
suggestion. I know members have a lot of conflicts right now. I 
think if we are rolling a vote, we would be able to report 
these nominees out this morning, so I would certainly concur in 
your request.
    The Chairman.  Thank you for being here. If I could, what I 
would like to do then in the interest of time, I would ask the 
committee to proceed en block vote in consideration of the 13 
nominees before the committee: Scott Allen to be U.S. director 
of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; 
Carolyn Alsup to be ambassador to Gambia; Ann Barr to be 
inspector general at USAID; John Estrada to be ambassador to 
Trinidad and Tobago; David Gilmour to be ambassador to the 
Togolese Republic; Jeffrey Hawkins to be the ambassador to the 
Central African Republic; Edwin Nolan to be the ambassador to 
Suriname; David Robinson to be the assistant secretary of state 
for conflict and Stabilization Operations as well as 
coordination for Reconstruction and Stabilization; Daniel 
Rubinstein to be the ambassador to Tunisia; Lucy Tamlyn to be 
the ambassador to Benin; Representatives Barbara Lee and Chris 
Smith to be representatives to the Seventieth Session of the 
General Assembly of the UN; and Susan Coppedge Amato to be 
director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking with 
the rank of Ambassador-at-large, who I think will have more 
positive impact on what is happening in the TIP Office than 
anything that has happened in a long time.
    I want to thank all these nominees for being willing to 
settle into these positions. Senator Cardin, I do not know if 
you have any additional comments. I would love to hear them.
    Senator Cardin. No, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank you for 
expediting these nominees. One we just had a hearing just very 
recently, so we are very pleased that we are able to move these 
nominations forward.
    The Chairman.  Are there any other comments by any other 
Senators? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Again, thank you all for being here. And I 
will have to ask since I have never done this before, how do we 
have a rolling vote?
    Voice. Hold it open.
    The Chairman.  So just for your edification if you are ever 
chairing one of these meetings---- [Laughter.]
    The Chairman  [continued.] Everybody will vote now, and 
then we will record a vote as it comes in later with unanimous 
consent, which we have already achieved. So if there is no 
further discussion on the nominations, I would entertain a 
motion to approve these nominations, so by voice vote en block.
    Senator Flake. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the nominees.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the nominations are 
agreed to.
    Our last order of business is the six Foreign Service 
officer list. I support these appointments and promotions, and 
would like to thank all those--all of these officers for their 
service. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Again, I thank you for bringing this list 
up, and I strongly support it.
    The Chairman.  Is there any other member who would wish to 
speak? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Seeing none, I would entertain a motion that 
we approve them en block, as modified, by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Foreign 
Service list en block, as modified.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the appointments and 
promotions are agreed to. And that completes the committee's 
business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    And with that and without objection, the committee will 
stand adjourned. Thank you all----
    Senator Cardin. I do not think we want to adjourn the 
committee. I think we want to keep it open, but we will start--
--
    The Chairman.  Oh, good point on this roving--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. With the consent--that we stay in session 
and keep the roll call open.
    The Chairman.  Unanimous consent.


    [The roll call vote remained open, and the scheduled 
hearing was called to order at 10:48 a.m.]


    [At 11:00 a.m. the committee achieved attendance sufficient 
to close the vote. The portion of that hearing's transcript is 
appended here:]


    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask, with the 
courtesy of our witness, we have the 10th member who is now 
here. If we could complete the business part of the meeting -
    Mr. Countryman. Absolutely.
    Senator Cardin. With your permission. I would appreciate 
that. We have an open roll call on the nominations that were 
before the committee as well as the lists that were 
submitted.Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would hope that 
we allow Senator Menendez--it was a voice vote, but if Senator 
Menendez could express his view, I think we could close out 
those votes and report these nominations out.
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez, we have the nominations en 
bloc. I know you have a record of who those are, and just 
wonder if you support or oppose that list en bloc.
    Senator Menendez. My understanding is there is a revised 
agenda.
    Senator Cardin. That is correct.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Menendez. Then I support them en bloc. The answer 
is yes.
    The Chairman. And Roberta on this--I am just kidding. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. At times I work--I struggle to get that 
Tennessee humor, you know? [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. We have three FSO lists, as modified. We have 
three FSO lists as modified, too, and you support those.
    Senator Menendez. Yes.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I think we then can close out 
the business meeting and report the nominees on the list.
    The Chairman. There may be others that wish to vote.
    Senator Cardin. Okay.
    The Chairman. But as of present, they will not, so meeting 
adjourned, and we now will continue with the hearing. Thank 
you.


    [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the business meeting was 
adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 8, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:49 a.m., in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Flake, 
Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Kaine, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations will come to order. I want to thank everybody for 
being here. On the agenda for today we have five pieces of 
legislation, including the Electrify Africa Act of 2015 and the 
U.S. Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, as well as a 
number of nominations.
    We take access to power for granted in this country, but in 
Africa an estimated 600 million Sub-Saharan Africans lack 
access to electricity, impeding economic growth, education 
outcomes, and public health. The Electrify Africa Act of 2015 
seeks to increase access to reliable electricity by making 
investments in the energy sector in Sub-Saharan Africa more 
attractive to private investors.
    Electrify Africa will promote policies to help African 
countries provide 50 million people with first-time access to 
electricity and 20,000 megawatts of electricity to the grid by 
2020. Without reliable and affordable power, aid to assist 
Africans will not achieve the success we hope for.
    There is a growing consensus that addressing electricity 
poverty in Africa should be a key aid priority. The needs are 
significant. Success will require private sector and public 
sector cooperation to accomplish that goal. But if successful, 
this effort will build electricity capacity to fuel economic 
growth in Africa.
    Just a quick point on OPEC, another disappointment with 
some on this committee that we are not reauthorizing OPEC in 
this bill. Our action here in the committee today should not be 
interpreted, at least from my standpoint, as a lack of support 
by me for OPEC. I have talked to the administrator, I had a 
meeting yesterday with Senator Coons, and there have just been 
some questions that have been raised.
    And I think today, in particular, I would just say that 
bringing the issue of OPEC before the United States Senate with 
all the issues that surround Ex-Im and other things, to me is 
self-defeating. And, you know, I look forward to working with 
people on both sides of the aisle to create an authorization at 
some point to do this in the appropriate way.
    Certainly I am going to be talking to appropriators about, 
again, I think we have done it 29 times, but extending this 
authorization through the appropriations process, which is not 
the preferred route. But in this particular case, Menendez, I 
guess, is looking at me relative to something we did in the 
past, and I am sure it was contradictory to this. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  But in any event, I think it is very----
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, we all evolve. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  The realities of serving in the Senate.
    So, look, I am very excited about what we are going to do 
today, and I really do think there have been tremendous 
bipartisan effort, plus efforts with the administration. I am 
excited about what this is going to mean to people who today in 
Africa do not have electricity and power. I know there are 
numbers of people who have worked on this, and hopefully it is 
going to pass out with a very strong vote.
    I could say a lot more, but I will say one more thing about 
the nominations. Actually I think because of what has happened 
with the climate nominee, I will just let--I will just let you 
speak to the nominations.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let 
me thank you for your cooperation on this business meeting. We 
are going to, I think, do some very, very important work in 
reporting legislation on Electrify Africa. I want to thank you 
for the cooperation and a way forward, and I join you in not 
only co-sponsoring, but urging our colleagues to report out 
this bill.
    It is extremely important for Sub-Sahara Africa. 
Electricity is the most pressing restraint in growth in human 
development, and this bill will allow us a path forward to help 
the growth of that region and the stability of that region, 
which is of great importance to U.S. interests. And this is a 
bipartisan way forward, and I am very, very supportive of this 
action.
    I agree with you. I am disappointed that the OPEC 
reauthorization is not included in this legislation. The 
original bill included it. We had strong bipartisan support for 
that moving forward, and I regret that we are not able to do 
that today. And I look forward to working with the chairman on 
finding alternative ways that we can deal with the 
reauthorization of OPEC in a way that preserves the role of 
this committee.
    I am also pleased that we have the U.S. Jordan Defense 
Cooperation Act. Senator Rubio and I have worked on this. 
Jordan is one of our closest friends and allies in the Middle 
East. This legislation will allow for defense sales and 
technical assistance to Jordan, and strengthen our relationship 
through the authorization to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding to increase military cooperation, and enhance 
strategic dialogue. So I think that is very important 
legislation, and I am glad that we are able to move forward on 
that.
    There are three resolutions that are on the agenda for 
action. All three are important. I want to congratulate Senator 
Shaheen on her resolution dealing with recognizing the peaceful 
reunification of Germany, one of the most important goals--
achievements of our time, and her work working with other 
members of the committee.
    I want to thank Senator Gardner for his leadership on 
recognizing the importance next week of Senator Park from Korea 
coming to the United States. That relationship between the 
United States and Korea is particularly important, highlighted 
yesterday by the hearing on the subcommittee, which I had the 
honor of being the ranking member of the subcommittee, to deal 
with the problems of North Korea. And certainly our 
relationship with Korea becomes very, very important.
    And the other resolution dealing with the discrimination 
against the Baha'i minority in Iran, Senator Kirk's legislation 
on that. I think all those are very, very important.
    Mr. Chairman, let me talk briefly about the nominees. We 
have some nominees on the schedule today, and I thank you for 
accommodating those so that we can continue, which I think is 
an outstanding record of this committee in moving forward 
nominations. I wish the floor of the Senate was as efficient as 
this committee in moving nominations, and we pointed out there 
are some very important nominations that have not moved 
forward, Gayle Smith, I think, being top on my list, as has 
been mentioned before.
    We talk about our security strategy with USAID, and we do 
not have a confirmed head of that agency. And quite frankly, 
overwhelming members of the United States Senate support her 
confirmation, so we need to find a way forward on the floor of 
the United States Senate.
    Let me talk very briefly about the two nominees that have 
been held over to the next voting session, which is certainly 
the right of any member of this committee. First, in regards to 
Roberta Jacobson. Yesterday you and I received a letter from 
the last six U.S. ambassadors to Mexico, ambassadors that have 
served under both the Bush administration, the Clinton 
administration, and the Obama administration, strongly urging 
us to confirm our ambassador to Mexico, and strongly supporting 
Roberta Jacobson's nomination for confirmation. Her 
qualifications are incredible for the ambassador to Mexico.
    I am going to ask consent that that be included in our 
record, and I know that we will not vote on our nominations 
today, which is the right of any member to hold over to the 
next voting session under the traditions of our committee. But 
I do look forward to the next business session when we can 
report out Ms. Jacobson for ambassador to Mexico.


    [The information referred to can be found at the end of 
this transcript.]


    Senator Cardin. The other nomination that has been held 
over today is the Haverkamp nomination, Jennifer Ann Haverkamp 
to be the assistant secretary of state for Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Mr. 
Chairman, I acknowledge that if that vote took place it would 
not receive the type of support that would give her the 
opportunity to be confirmed on the floor of the United States 
Senate. I find that very, very disappointing.
    I find that disappointing because I have not yet heard a 
single challenge to her credentials or qualifications to hold 
this office. She is a Rhodes Scholar. She has extensive 
experience in USTR's office and others. She is imminently 
qualified. And the complaints that I hear deal basically with 
the Obama policies more so than it does with an individual, 
which I understand the politics. Do not get me wrong. But the 
reputation of this committee is such that if we start holding 
up nominations in this committee because we disagree with an 
administration's policy, it is going to be a long road in the 
future.
    So I hope within the next week--it will be two weeks 
because we are not going to be here next week, and I want to 
have conversations with members of this committee that we have 
an understanding as to what standards we are using for 
recommendations to the full floor. And in Ms. Haverkamp's case, 
I would strongly urge us to give her a vote of confidence in 
this committee, recognizing it is going to be a long road on 
the floor of the Senate.
    I understand that. I understand the prerogatives of 
individual Senators. But I also understand the credibility of 
this committee, and I am going to be urging us at the next 
voting session to approve her nomination to the full floor.
    The Chairman.  Well, with that statement being made, I hope 
the Senator will acknowledge that in every case that we have 
had issues with nominees, we have actually worked hard with the 
administration to gain support. If you remember, the USAID 
administrator had some issues, and, therefore, we worked with 
the administration to overcome those. And she came out with a 
very strong vote.
    There is--it is incumbent upon the administration to put 
out at least a degree of effort in trying to win support for 
some of these nominees, and I think you know--we certainly--me 
as chairman, we are not holding anybody up. And I hope you will 
at least acknowledge that, and acknowledge the fact that there 
needs to be some degree of effort by the administration to win 
support of people other than just Democrats.
    Senator Cardin. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. You have been 
incredibly helpful for us to try to accommodate expedited 
procedures on these nominations and to get the broad support 
necessary for confirmation. And it is a two-way street. The 
State Department has to work with us, and I agree with you 
completely.
    The Chairman.  So on that note, let me just say that I want 
to have Secretary Kerry come up and to talk with us, as many on 
this committee on both sides of the aisle have asked, to talk 
with us about what is happening in Syria, and how that is going 
to be dealt with. He has refused to do that, will not return 
phone calls, has stated--we heard this week that he was out of 
town, but I know that not to be true. I know he is meeting with 
people today over at the State Department. And so, therefore, 
we asked that he come next week. Will not return phone calls, 
and underlings have been suggested to come up and talk with us.
    So we have been very cooperative. Most of the criticism of 
many with this administration on many issues, and I do not know 
what to do at this point when probably the biggest humanitarian 
catastrophe, disaster since World War II is underway. Difficult 
for us to understand what Russia's role and Iran's role now is. 
And for the Secretary of State to be unwilling to come here I 
find to be very problematic, and especially with a committee 
like ours that has worked with the administration in the manner 
that we all have in a very bipartisan way.
    So I do not know what steps to take. Subpoenaing a 
Secretary of State is certainly an extraordinary step, and one 
that needs to be thought about because of the--let us face it, 
we all respect greatly that position. We do. But I do not know 
what--I do not know what to do when you have the biggest 
crisis, people flooding into Europe, a 100 percent change 
taking place on the ground, which brings me to the second 
point. And this is going to be something I am not accustomed to 
doing.
    But I saw the junior Senator from Virginia on television 
this morning, and I am sorry, I have got to stand for the 
integrity of this committee. I cannot let someone, in essence, 
blame this committee and blame the United States Senate and 
House of Representatives for what has occurred in Syria.
    I just want to correct the record and say that this 
committee in August/September of 2013 under the chairman's 
leadership, Chairman Menendez, passed an authorization for the 
use of force. The administration did not utilize it. Decided 
to, in essence, deal with it through dealing with Russia on 
chemical weapons. This committee passed out a very strong bill 
to deal with supporting the moderate Syrian rebels.
    The Congress authorized a train and equip program, which 
now the President says he never really believed in, but we 
authorized it and paid for it, and I think we have five to nine 
people on the ground. And the fact is that this committee 
never, ever heard from the administration a coherent strategy 
on Syria, and still has not done that.
    So the administration witnesses have been up here. They 
have told us they feel like they are authorized to do the work 
that they are doing in Syria. I agree with that. Every witness 
we had from the administration said they had every authority 
they need to do what they are doing. Nothing from Congress is 
holding them up. We have asked them if they wanted the 
authority to protect the moderate rebels when they were fired 
upon by Assad. They do not want that authority. Now we 
understand there is potentially an alleged program where other 
trainees are being fired upon. They have not asked for the 
authority to do that.
    The President has never come forth with a coherent 
strategy, and I am actually glad that this committee never 
authorized something that has no strategy to it. So I cannot 
stand by the fact that actions--I believe they are authorized 
to deal with ISIS based on '01. Some people do not. But they 
do, and I do.
    So to say that somehow Congress--Congress--has had 
something to do with this administration not having a strategy 
nor the will as they have said. They really do not have the 
will in the train and equip program. They just did it because 
people here wanted them to do it. So I have to take issue with 
that.
    And I think it is--the Senator also mentioned we should 
develop a strategy in Syria. I do not know. I mean, I think it 
is incumbent the Commander-in-Chief to lay out a strategy, and 
for us to believe that that strategy is one that they have the 
will to win, but also the desire to see successful as I just 
said. And we have not seen that. We have seen no strategy, and 
I think to have the Secretary of State come up here and explain 
to us where they are and where we are going is something that 
is very important.
    So I just want to say I am not going to stand for that. I 
am not going to let comments like that stand. I know the 
Senator cares deeply about authorizations, and I respect that 
deeply. And I know it is something that bothers him deeply 
that--and we have done some things to take back power in this 
committee through the Iran Review Act, and it would not have 
happened.
    But I am sorry, I do not think Congress has played any role 
in the fact that this administration has shown no will, no 
strategy, no commitment to dealing with the issue of Syria. And 
I am glad the committee did not authorize--support something 
that we know has no chance of success, has no thought behind 
it, and no commitment. So I just--I will debate this five hours 
if we want to do it right now. I am glad to do it. But I 
cannot--I cannot let statements like that----
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chair, I will yield to my colleague for 
one second. Let me first, if I might, point--agree with you 
that we need to hear from the administration particularly about 
the most recent chain of events in Syria with Russia's military 
presence and Russia's military actions, changing the equation 
in that--in that region, not just affecting Syria, but also 
affecting surrounding countries using airspace, et cetera. This 
is a very dangerous situation, and our committee needs to be 
not only advised, but consulted as to what is taking place in 
Syria today.
    And I have not--I am not aware of the request that you have 
made. I am more than happy to work with you to make sure that 
we get a briefing. I would think it will be in a SCIF, but we 
also want to do things in a more open manner with the American 
people on what is happening in Syria today.
    The refugee issue is the consequence--immediate 
consequence, but the deeper problems are the civil war and the 
fight against ISIS that is very much different today than it 
was when we passed in this committee the authorization for use 
of military force. And I supported that effort, and I do think 
Congress needs to act.
    I am going to yield to my colleague from Virginia, but I 
really want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator Flake for 
pointing out that we would be in a much stronger position today 
if Congress could get direction to the administration on the 
use of military force. But I want to just make an 
acknowledgement and agree with our chairman. I do not think 
that is going to happen. I just do not think we have the 
consensus. And certainly with the changing conditions in the 
country, it would be very difficult for us to come to grips 
with an authorization for the use of military force at this 
time, but we should try and we should continue. And we would be 
stronger if Congress could be united in the use of our military 
force by action of the Congress.
    So I fully understand the circumstances are in the hands of 
the administration, Article 2 powers. The President has those 
powers. He can act. But it would be stronger if we could be 
united with the President on a military strategy. It starts 
with being read in. It starts with being briefed. It starts 
with the confidence factor between the administration and 
Congress. And obviously I will join you in those efforts to get 
the Secretary and whoever else we need here to brief us on 
that.
    If I would, I yield to Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, and, Mr. Chair, I will be very 
brief, and not personal at all because this is an important 
matter, and people feel differently about it. I did not say 
anything negative about the committee this morning, but I did 
say something very negative about Congress, and I said 
something very negative about the administration.
    I said we do not have a strategy in Syria. In the midst of 
an ongoing war, we do not have a strategy in Syria, and I 
blamed the administration and Congress for that. We asked the 
President to send an authorization for military action to us. 
It took him six months to do it. He should have done it within 
a month. It took him six months to do it. But since he sent 
that up to us in the middle part of February, Congress has 
really done nothing on that.
    And I know the administration, some of them insist they 
have legal authority, but there is great debate within the 
administration on that, and many of us have deep questions 
about the legal authority of an undeclared war. But the bottom 
line is we asked the President to send over an authorization, 
and he did. We do not like the one he sent, but we have not 
undertaken, in my view, the Article 1 responsibilities we have 
for weighing in on whether the Nation should be at war.
    And I will just conclude and say in Armed Services we had a 
hearing, and it was a very powerful one, where General Dunford 
was before us to be confirmed to be head of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. And I basically referred to the thousands of military 
that we have in Iraq and Syria, and I asked him would they 
respond to the notion of Congress finally weighing in to vote 
yea or nay upon whether we should be at war. They are risking 
their lives in this endeavor.
    And his testimony was, and this is almost a precise quote, 
what General Dunford said, ``What our fighting men and women 
need, and it is virtually all that they need, to do what we ask 
them to do is a sense that what they are doing has meaning, has 
purpose, and has the support of the American people.''
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Kaine. And after that testimony, he said that is 
what Congress weighing in and authorizing would mean.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Kaine. It would mean that those who are there know 
that they have--what they are doing has meaning, has purpose, 
and has the support of the American people.
    That is what interests me in this whole thing, and I just--
from a State that has got an awful lot of military personnel, 
like all of your States do, I just am grievously concerned that 
as this situation continues to spiral downward, we are 
critiquing witnesses as they appear, but we are not doing what 
we are supposed to do. And that is a critique of the 
administration. It is a critique of Congress. I am part of 
Congress. It is a self-critique.
    The Chairman.  So I hear that, and I think that everybody 
on this committee has asked the administration--and as I said, 
I applaud your efforts to push for a stronger role of Congress. 
I always have, and I always will. In this particular case, I 
think it is very self-evident by what we see happening right 
now, we never were able to get the administration to lay out 
what it was they were going to do in Syria to be successful, 
which to me is an important part of an authorization. Now, if 
anybody can tell me today what this administration planned to 
do in the beginning and plans to do now to be successful in 
Syria, I do not think anybody can. So I am sorry, I think----
    Senator Kaine. But, Mr. Chair----
    The Chairman [continuing.] Especially, by the way, when 
members of Congress are wanting to do a limited authorization, 
a limited authorization, which really--let us face it. You 
know, I am going to call like it is. Many people want to pass 
an authorization to make sure we do not do much. That we do not 
do much. That was at least 40 percent of what this committee 
was doing, to make sure we do not do much.
    So I am sorry. When the administration is ready to lay out 
something that is coherent and that people believe is worth 
people's blood, that they are committed, I am willing to take 
up an authorization as long as I know that after the fact when 
we authorize things the administration says, well, we really 
did not think that was going to be successful. We were just 
trying to show, which is what they did with the train and equip 
program. Then I am sorry, I am not willing to vote behind an 
administration that I know is not committed to actually being 
successful. So we have a difference here----
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to take issue 
with you. I do not want that statement to remain unchallenged. 
I am with you in getting the administration up here. I am with 
you in getting briefed on what has happened recently with 
Russia's involvement in Syria, the refugee crisis, et cetera. I 
am with you on all that.
    There is more to U.S. leadership than our military, and 
many of us believe that there is not a military--U.S. military 
solution to Syria. I certainly believe there is not a U.S. 
military solution to Syria, so I believe in the use of our 
military. I believe our military needs to be engaged in that 
region, but that the defense, ultimately it is the government 
in Syria that represents all of its people and can defend 
itself. And that should be our goal.
    So I am not ready to join you in your assessment of the 
administration's efforts in Syria to build a coalition based 
upon respected international values. That to me is where we 
need to be in showing strength.
    I am extremely concerned with the changes that have taken 
place within the last couple of weeks with Russia's engagement. 
I think we need to be engaged in that, and I have been 
disappointed that there have been no briefings from the 
administration on the Russia engagement. At least I have not 
been aware of a briefing that has been scheduled, and to me 
that should have been scheduled well before now, and I will 
join to get the administration up here to explain to us what is 
happening in Syria and their policy.
    The Chairman.  Well, when the Secretary of State does not 
have the courage to come before the very committee that he 
chaired, and face us, and talk about the massive humanitarian 
crisis that is taking place, and the fact that Russia and Iran 
have filled a vacuum that we have left, when he does not have 
the courage to even come up here and face this committee and 
testify, I think it speaks and validates the comments that I 
just made.
    So with that----
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman.  Okay.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that people 
feel strongly about the issues that have been raised. But I 
think that one of the things that is not helpful to debate 
these issues is to attack someone's character. Now, I have no 
idea why the Secretary of State has not come before the 
committee or has not returned your calls, but I am not willing 
at this point to attack his character and say that he is afraid 
to respond.
    So I would--I think it would behoove us all to try and keep 
our debate to the issues and to keep a civil discourse because 
that is one of the challenges that we face as we are trying to 
debate issues.
    Senator Markey. Would the gentle lady yield?
    The Chairman.  I do not think----
    Senator Markey. Would the gentle lady yield?
    The Chairman.  Yes. I do not think it has been an issue in 
this committee of civil discourse.
    Senator Shaheen. I actually think there have been times 
when members of the committee have not been civil to witnesses 
who have been before the committee and who have suggested 
that--who have made some of their questioning personal. Let me 
just put it that way.
    Senator Markey. Would the Senator----
    Senator Shaheen. And I think that does not--that is not 
helpful to any of us.
    Senator Markey. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? 
[Nonverbal response.]
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you. Using the word ``courage'' 
when it comes to John Kerry is not appropriate. That is just 
reminiscent of what happened in the 2004 presidential race. 
There may be a disagreement in judgment in terms of what the 
right strategy is, but questioning the Secretary of State's 
courage is just not appropriate. It just not appropriate. That 
is not the right context for this discussion, okay?
    There may be a big difference in terms of what is the 
correct way to proceed. It is very complex in Syria. And he is 
working hard to try to put together a coalition that includes 
the Saudis and others to move them to a more responsible 
diplomatic resolution. There has obviously been a change from 
General Dempsey to General Dunford, and, of course, there is a 
discussion about what the ongoing strategy should be in that 
country.
    But putting it in the context which you did this morning, 
Mr. Chairman, is just inappropriate. We should not be using 
that kind of language over a policy. It is a discussion over a 
policy going forward, but we just should not go back to that 
language which was completely inappropriate. His service in 
Vietnam proved that he has courage on an unbounded level, and 
so we should just keep it at that level. And I think if we do, 
then I think it will be a better and ultimately more productive 
discussion which we have on this committee.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Well, let me say this if I could. I am not 
challenging the Secretary's courage relative to his service in 
the military nor many other fronts, but I stand by my comments. 
Something is keeping the Secretary, not about policy. We are 
not--we are not--this is not a policy debate right now. It is 
about having a Secretary of State that we have worked with 
every single day to make sure that the nominations and other 
kind of things through in an appropriate way, having a 
Secretary of State that is unwilling to return phone calls, 
unwilling to come before this committee, wanting to send 
underlings up here instead, when, in essence, we have a big 
issue. I am sorry; there is something that is amiss here.
    And maybe that word does not describe it properly, and 
maybe if he ever comes he can describe it. But something is 
keeping the Secretary of State from being willing to even 
return phone calls, but certainly come up here and testify 
before this committee.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir.
    Senator Risch. You know, first of all, let me say that I 
think what we are seeing here is a real frustration by the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate with 
one of the most serious, if not the most serious, problem we 
have internationally right now. And I think Senator Kaine has 
expressed the frustration that everybody has with where we are 
or, more properly, where we are not from a strategy standpoint.
    And I think this committee is entitled to examine it. I 
think this committee is entitled to an explanation. After all, 
we are the first branch of government. We fund these things. We 
need to know where we are going, what our plans are. All of us 
go home and we are asked by the media, what are you guys doing 
about Syria. This thing is spinning out of control, and nothing 
is happening. Just tell us what your strategy is. And, I mean, 
it is embarrassing to say, well, you know, to my knowledge the 
United States has no strategy because I have not heard it, and 
I do not think anybody on the committee has heard it.
    Having said that, I think the chairman's frustration with 
the fact that the Secretary of State will not return the phone 
calls of the chairman of this committee causes considerable 
frustration. And, Senator Shaheen and Senator Markey, you know, 
I think he will return your phone calls for obvious reasons.
    Senator Shaheen. Not necessarily. [Laughter.]
    Senator Risch. Well, maybe you ought to give it a try I 
guess is what I am saying, and explain to him the frustration 
that we are feeling. Everybody is frustrated here. We need some 
help, and sparring between ourselves I agree is not helpful.
    But we need to get together here and get this 
administration and say, folks, help us out here. Where is 
America going? We need leadership here. And I think that is the 
frustration that boiling over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cardin. I just need to talk one minute about the 
relationship that we have had in this committee between the 
Democrats and Republicans in getting the cooperation of the 
administration when we have made requests. We have had some 
pretty sensitive issues, and we have been able to get full 
briefings. We have had incredible access. I am not aware, and I 
have worked very well with the chairman, and I very much 
appreciate the open way that we have been able to do our 
business not only in Congress, but also with the 
administration.
    I have said today and I will repeat, let us join together. 
Let us talk to the administration. Let us get us briefed as to 
as much information as we can about what is happening in Syria. 
I am not aware that my office has been involved with your 
office in these requests, so let us do it jointly, and let us 
see if we cannot get the appropriate briefings.
    I hope some will be in a classified setting because I think 
we need that, but others should be an open setting so the 
American people also understand what is happening in Syria.
    The Chairman.  So we will move on the business. I just want 
to close by saying we have sent over multiple requests--
multiple--and multiple times the State Department has said that 
others at lower levels will be sent, but the Secretary will not 
come. So I would look forward to your help in doing that, and 
at the same time think that a request by the chairman of the 
committee for the Secretary to come over and talk with us about 
Syria is something that I would think would be in order. Yes, 
sir? Either one. Yes, sir?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
discussion. I think you have enough members here for your 
business meeting. I do not know how much longer that is going 
to continue, and you might want to at some point consider 
moving on to that.
    Senator Cardin. That is a good suggestion.
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir. Go ahead.
    Senator Coons. And I simply was going to briefly add that 
given that the U.S. Jordan Defense Cooperation Act is on our 
agenda, and given that the resolution condemning Iran's ongoing 
human rights violations against the Baha'i, to which I would 
like to join as a sponsor, is on our agenda. And given how many 
of us have worked hard together to get the Electrify Africa Act 
ready to go, I would like to make some comments on that later. 
Let us proceed with the meeting.
    The Chairman.  All right. So the nominations, if we could 
vote on them en bloc if there is a move towards that end. The 
Honorable Robert Porter Jackson to be ambassador to Ghana; the 
Honorable Harry Thomas to be ambassador to Zimbabwe; Ms. Julie 
Furuta-Toy to be the ambassador to Equatorial Guinea; Mr. 
Dennis B. Hankins to be ambassador to Guinea.
    I want to thank all of these people for being willing to 
serve. Senator Cardin, do you have any comments?
    Senator Cardin. No. Again, thank you for expediting and 
adding these to today's business meeting. And I thank our 
colleagues for allowing them to be on the agenda.
    The Chairman.  Does any other member wish to be recognized?
    Senator Markey. If I may, Mr. Chairman, and I will just be 
very brief--thank you--and that is on Jennifer Haverkamp. We 
know that ultimately climate change is an overriding reason why 
she is not going to be moving forward right now and her views 
on that scientific issue, but this is an appointment that deals 
with the Arctic. It deals with infectious diseases. It deals 
with science. It deals with so many issues.
    It has been vacant for a year. And notwithstanding the 
differences opinion that might exist on this committee on the 
subject of climate change, I do believe that the administration 
is entitled to have someone in that position who is doing it on 
an ongoing basis.
    And I just wish--I would just say that I support all the 
nominees that you have put in the--in the motion at this point 
in time. But I do wish that she, and I might say, the Jacobson 
nomination was also moving forward at this time. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman.  If there is no further discussion on the 
nominations, I would entertain a motion of these nominations by 
voice vote en bloc.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Udall. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the nominations.
    All those in favor say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The nomination 
is agreed to.
    Our next order of business that I also we consider en bloc 
by voice vote are the following resolutions before the 
committee: S. Res. 274, a resolution commemorating the 25th 
anniversary of peaceful and democratic reunification of 
Germany; S. Res. 278, welcoming the president of the Republic 
of Korea on her official visit to the United States and 
celebrating the United States-Republic of Korea relationship, 
and for other purposes; S. Res. 148, a resolution condemning 
the government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of Baha'i 
minority and its continued violation of the International 
Covenants of Human rights. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. I support all three and support a motion to 
consider them en bloc.
    The Chairman.  Are there other any members who wish to 
speak? Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Shaheen. Senator Rubio asked to be added as a co-
sponsor on the resolution with respect to reunification of 
Germany, so I would ask that he be added.
    The Chairman.  Absolutely, and thank you for your efforts 
in that regard. Any other discussion?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to 
thank Senator Cardin as well for the work on the resolution 
welcoming President Park to the United States. Obviously this 
visit was anticipated earlier this year, for reasons back home 
could not be here. We will be out of town when she is here on 
the work week, but our countries share the bond of freedom, 
democracy, and free markets, a relationship forged in blood.
    And as we work together on economic issues and regional 
issues, the trilateral alliance between the U.S., South Korea, 
and Japan creates one of the best opportunities we have for 
both economic and security purposes. So I welcome President 
Park, and thanks for everybody's support on this.
    The Chairman.  And thanks for your efforts on the North 
Korea issue. We hope to have a hearing in November to follow up 
on what you introduced this week.
    Is there--is there--if there is no further discussion on 
these resolutions, I would entertain a motion to approve this 
en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Markey. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve these resolutions 
en bloc.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The resolutions are agreed 
to.
    Next we will move to S. 1789, the U.S. Jordan Defense 
Cooperation Act of 2015. I would like to recognize Ambassador 
Bouran from Jordan. Is he here? Is she here? Sorry. My 
apologies. Thank you so much for being here, who is in the 
audience. Thank you for joining us. I look forward to taking 
one more step forward in the strong relationship between our 
countries, and I know that your country is under tremendous 
distress with all of the refugees that people have so willingly 
have taken in. And we thank you for that.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments to make on this?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Ambassador heard 
my comments earlier on this important legislation, but it 
strengthens the ties between one of our closest allies. And we 
are pleased to show and demonstrate how we can even make that 
relationship stronger.
    The Chairman.  Anyone else want to speak to the 
legislation? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to approve this 
legislation?
    Senator Coons. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1789.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is approved.
    Lastly, we will move to S. 2152, Electrify Africa Act of 
2015. Senator Cardin, do you have any comments you would like 
to make on this legislation?
    Senator Cardin. I have already made it during our opening 
comments. And, again, I want to thank all the members of the 
committee that were involved in putting this together. I 
understand we have an amendment that is going to be offered by 
Senator Markey. And I think that we have really worked out a 
lot of the members' interest in the chairman's bill that has 
been filed. And I thank you for being so open to the members of 
the committee.
    The Chairman.  Any other Senators want to make an amendment 
or a statement? Yes, Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. If I might just in a brief statement, Power 
Africa has gotten off to a very strong start and is making a 
significant contribution to fighting poverty in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. I have had the opportunity to visit Power Africa 
project sites in Rwanda, and Kenya, and Ethiopia.
    I think moving ahead with this authorization is absolutely 
vital, and it is my hope that members will work strongly 
together to get it through the floor. I am disappointed we are 
not including an OPEC reauthorization, and I appreciate the 
chairman's comments at the outset. And I very much look forward 
to working with colleagues to reform, and improve, and sustain 
OPEC.
    We should not be pulling it out of the mix of resources for 
financing energy projects at a time when our competitors have 
even stronger financing vehicles available. But it is more 
important that we move forward with Electrify Africa and get it 
done and authorized. I am grateful for the real leadership of 
the subcommittee chair and ranking on getting this done, and I 
am pleased to join as an original co-sponsor. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. I know you have been a champion, 
and I want to thank Senator Flake for his leadership on the 
subcommittee and also his pursuit of this issue. Yes, sir?
    Senator Flake. I would just say I appreciate those who have 
worked so hard on it. I know we have had some differences on 
some issues with it, but I appreciate the chairman's doggedness 
in moving this forward. And I want to make sure that I am added 
as a co-sponsor to it.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator--yes, sir?
    Senator Isakson. I, too, was an original sponsor of the 
original bill. I would ask to be added as an original sponsor 
of this. And I would like to acknowledge that the chairman 
represents the Tennessee Valley Authority, which was the 
instrument that electrified the southeastern United States many 
years ago. And I think it is only appropriate that you are 
leader who will electrify Africa today.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you, and I know you would love 
to be leading the Africa effort personally, and that is not 
happening. But you have been certainly so instrumental in so 
many great things happening there, and we thank you for that. 
Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I 
have three amendments. I would just ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw Amendment Number 1, and what I would like to be able 
to do is just offer modified versions of Amendment Number 2 and 
Number 3. And those amendments, which, again, I appreciate very 
much, Mr. Chairman, your working through the ranking member of 
the full committee with us in order to develop language which 
would be acceptable.
    And those amendments say that the electricity development 
under this bill is widespread and does not advance the 
electricity goals of one region over another, but that it would 
be widespread. And secondly, that local communities will be 
consulted as part of this program so that there is, in fact, a 
discussion that goes on within these countries, within these 
communities, within these regions about these programs. And I 
thank you for your work in developing the language.
    And with that, I would propound those amendments and ask 
for their adoption from the committee.
    The Chairman.  Very good. And I want to thank you for the 
way you worked with our office to modify these and to get 
things in a place that we could unanimously pass this.
    So I would entertain a motion that we consider Markey 
Amendments 2 and 3, voice vote en bloc.
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve Markey Amendments 
Number 2 and 3.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and Markey 
Amendments 2 and 3 agreed to, as modified.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Coons. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 2152, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is approved.
    That completes the committee's business. Thank you all for 
being here. I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    With that, the meeting comes to end, and thank you for 
urging me to move it along.


    [Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

               LETTER IN SUPPORT OF ROBERTA S. JACOBSON, 
            SUBMITTED BY SIX PAST U.S. AMBASSADORS TO MEXICO

                                                    October 7, 2015
Hon. Bob Corker,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
Ranking Member Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin We are 
writing to express our strong support for the nomination of 
Roberta S. Jacobson to be the next U.S. ambassador to Mexico. 
As former ambassadors to Mexico, we know what the job requires. 
Our collective experience in Mexico covers a quarter century 
serving both Democratic and Republican administrations, 
encompassing such pivotal events as signing of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 peso crisis, the 
Zapatista rebellion, Mexico's transition to democracy, the 
aftermath of 9/11, the intensification of the drug wars, the 
launch of the Merida Initiative, and Mexico's recent bold steps 
towards fiscal, education, and energy reforms. We have 
experienced the ups and downs of this close, essential, and 
challenging relationship and have done our best to ensure that 
the deep ties of friendship between Mexico and the United 
States continue to thrive amid a time of rapid change. We also 
know that this relationship is too important to neglect.
    Mexico is our third largest trading partner, a G-20 
partner, an OECD partner, and a leader at the Organization of 
American States and in the hemisphere. The bilateral economic 
relationship between our two countries is staggering: two-way 
trade topped $550 billion in 2014, supporting thousands of U.S. 
jobs. Mexico remains the top foreign destination for travelers 
from the United States, with 25 million visiting in 2014 and 17 
million Mexican tourists visiting the U.S. the same year. On 
any given day, there are about 1.5 million American citizens in 
Mexico. Mexico is also confronting tough security challenges 
from transnational criminal organizations and is working to 
implement recent historic reforms that could positively 
transform Mexico's judicial, energy and fiscal sectors, among 
others, permanently. Now is precisely the time for an 
experienced U.S. ambassador well-versed on Mexico.
    Roberta Jacobson's qualifications, experience, and 
integrity are beyond reproach and she is the right person to 
assume this post at a critical moment in U.S.-Mexican 
relations. She is one of the foremost experts on Mexico in the 
United States Government. During her nearly 30 years with the 
Department of State, including 16 as a member of the Senior 
Executive Service, Roberta has demonstrated extraordinary 
leadership advancing U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere. 
As Director of the Office of Mexican Affairs, she began by 
resolving our ``water debt'' with Mexico in 2003 and continues 
to understand the critical importance of a well-managed border 
to both our economic competitiveness and our national security. 
Roberta foresaw an historic opportunity to transform our 
bilateral relationship into a paradigm-shifting partnership 
through the Merida Initiative. As Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for North America from 2007-2010, she ensured continuity across 
administrations by building the broad base of bipartisan 
political support that this unprecedented, whole-of-government 
security cooperation effort needed to work with our Mexican 
partners.
    When Roberta was confirmed as Assistant Secretary for 
Western Hemisphere Affairs in March 2012, she broke new ground 
in two important ways, by becoming the first career civil 
servant to head a regional bureau, as well as the first woman 
to head the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Roberta has 
een a consistent visionary and keen strategist guiding U.S. 
citizen security, rule of law policy in the Americas in direct 
support of U.S. national security. Her signature work on 
education in the ``100,000 Strong in the Americas'' exchange 
program, entrepreneurship, social inclusion, and particularly 
the establishment of the High Level Economic Dialogue with 
Mexico and the North American Leaders process clearly 
demonstrate she brings exactly the skill set that U.S.-Mexican 
relations will require in the coming period.
    Roberta S. Jacobson is the right person for the job, and we 
ask for you to act quickly to confirm her so that one of our 
most important bilateral relationships is not deprived of the 
American leadership that only a U.S. ambassador can provide.
            Sincerely,
                                   Hon. John D. Negroponte,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 1989-1993
                                       Hon. James R. Jones,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 1993-1997
                                   Hon. Jeffrey S. Davidow,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002
                                        Hon. Antonio Garza,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 2002-2009
                                       Hon. Carlos Pascual,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 2009-2011
                                     Hon. E. Anthony Wayne,
                               U.S. ambassador to Mexico, 2011-2015



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, November 10, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:47 a.m., in 
Room S-116, Capitol Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Perdue, Isakson, Barrasso, Cardin, Boxer, 
Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  I will call the meeting to order and thank 
everybody for being here. And we have enough people here to 
begin the voting process, but in order to move it along I 
thought we would start, and I will certainly listen to any 
comments that people have. So the meeting will come to order.
    We have a number of items on the agenda today, including 
four pieces of legislation, 11 nominations, and eight treaties. 
I am pleased we are moving forward on two resolutions, the 
Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2015, and 
the International Megan's Law. The International Megan's Law 
will formalize and enforce existing efforts to protect children 
and minors from sexual predators traveling abroad. This is also 
important to help our efforts to end sexual exploitation and 
other forms of modern slavery.
    We will consider several nominations today, including the 
undersecretary of State of Political Affairs and many important 
ambassadors. I want to thank my colleagues for helping the 
committee work through the nominees in an appropriate fashion.
    Lastly, we will consider eight tax treaties. These 
conventions and protocols include bilateral treaties with 
Switzerland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Chile, Poland, Spain, and 
multilateral OECD mutual assistance protocols. Switzerland, 
Hungary, and Luxembourg have been approved twice by this 
committee, first in the 112th Congress and again last April 
when this committee approved three treaties by voice along with 
the Chile and the OECD treaties.
    This committee approved the Spain and Poland treaties last 
July, also by voice vote. The protocol with Japan was received 
earlier this year. These treaties will eliminate the 
uncertainty of double taxation for U.S. companies doing 
business in these countries. They also facilitate trade and 
investment and provide U.S. investors with greater certainty 
about their tax burden abroad.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for any comments. Senator Cardin?

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first thank you for 
scheduling this business meeting and for including so many 
important issues, both laws, resolutions and nominees that we 
will act on. I want to thank you for allowing the Foreign Aid 
Transparency Act that has been sponsored by Senator Rubio and I 
to be on today's agenda. I think this is a win for the 
development community and a win for American taxpayers.
    When the U.S. signed up for the International Aid 
Transparency initiative in 2011, we committed to make U.S. aid 
transparent by December 2015. The U.S. is not close to meeting 
its commitments by that deadline, but I think this bill will 
help us advance America's strong policy towards transparency 
globally by taking care of business at home first on U.S. 
foreign assistance.
    I also want to thank you for adding to today's agenda the 
Blumenthal-Ayotte Stand with Israel resolution. This resolution 
reaffirms our commitment to stand with Israel and support 
Israel's right to self-defense. Over the past month we have 
seen a new wave of violence, including stabbings, car rammings, 
and shootings targeted at Israeli citizens. Critically, this 
resolution rejects any moral equivalence between Israeli 
security personnel taking action to protect its citizens and 
the senseless violence targeted against Israeli citizens. We 
applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu and Jordanian King Abdullah 
for their commitment to maintaining the status quo on the 
Temple Mount and for embracing Secretary of State Kerry's 
proposal to install surveillance cameras at the Temple Mount.
    The resolution urges the Israelis and Palestinians to 
return to the negotiating table immediately. We all know what 
the two-state solution looks like. Now more than ever we need 
leadership and political will to get there, so I am proud to 
co-sponsor that resolution, and I am glad to see that we will 
be acting on that.
    I also want to join you in supporting the Megan's Law that 
would make this global. I think that the chairman's mark adds 
some important protections, and I know Senator Markey had an 
amendment that was added to it. And I thank all those who have 
worked to make this law one that will clearly establish U.S. 
international leadership on sexual predators. I also thank you 
for including Senator Johnson's resolution dealing with 
atrocities committed by ISIL.
    As you pointed out, there are eight tax treaties that are 
on today's markup. All of these advance the U.S. commitment 
against double taxation, and the right of privacy, and 
confidentiality of taxpayer information with the compliance 
with our tax laws.
    And then lastly, thank you for including a lot of our 
critical nominees. Eleven were included. Thank you for 
including Tom Shannon, a very important obviously position 
within the State Department. I do want to mention specifically 
Roberta Jacobson as the ambassador to Mexico. Her significant 
policy management and interagency expertise both domestically 
and overseas makes Mrs. Jacobson uniquely qualified to serve as 
our ambassador. My understanding is that the government of 
Mexico is highly complimentary of Mrs. Jacobson's nomination, 
is eager to get her into place, and I agree with that. This is 
our closest neighbor to the south, Mexico, and it is important 
that we have a confirmed ambassador.
    So we have a robust agenda, and I think we might have a 
quorum.
    The Chairman.  We do.
    Senator Cardin. Then I will end my comments.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you for those outstanding 
comments. First, I would like to consider the eight tax 
treaties on the agenda.
    Since 1973, the Senate has moved 109 tax treaties and tax 
treaty protocols. Until the 112th Congress, no tax treaty has 
required a cloture vote. Every tax treaty since 1991, for a 
total of 53, have moved by UC on the Senate floor. The treaties 
we are considering today continue the longstanding provision 
and practice of those previous treaties. It is time to move 
these treaties forward to the full Senate for a vote where I 
expect they will receive broad bipartisan support. Do you have 
any additional comments?
    Senator Cardin. I concur.
    The Chairman.  Is there any member that would like to 
recognized to speak on the treaties? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  No further discussion, I would entertain a 
motion to approve them by voice vote en bloc.
    Senator Johnson. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve eight tax treaties.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The treaties are agreed 
to.
    And now, I would like to ask the committee to proceed en 
bloc to a voice vote on consideration of the 11 nominations 
before the committee.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would have to object to 
that. I would like the nomination of Roberta Jacobson to be 
excluded from the en bloc, and when it is appropriate I want to 
speak to the nomination.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Very good.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  We will do that. Yes, sir?
    Senator Isakson. I would also like to vote separately on 
Ms. Jacobson as well.
    The Chairman.  Okay. All right.
    Senator Isakson. I will speak to that at the appropriate 
time.
    The Chairman.  Ron the same and----
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. I do not know if this comment is 
appropriate now or after we do the vote, but I just have to 
again raise the concern that Gayle Smith, who has been 
nominated to head USAID, even though she has moved through this 
committee, she is still being held up on the floor. And I 
appreciate the chair and ranking member's efforts to move this 
nomination.
    But the fact is we have got a refugee crisis in the world, 
and the lead agency responsible to try and help those refugees 
does not have the leadership it needs at this time of crisis. 
And I think it is--it is just unacceptable that we have got one 
person, not even related to the issue of Gayle Smith and USAID, 
who is holding this up because he has a problem with the Obama 
administration.
    Again, I think that is not the way we can reassure people 
in this country that we should run the government. And I would 
hope that everybody on this committee would do everything 
possible to try and get that hold lifted so we can move this 
nomination.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir? Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me just underscore 
Senator Shaheen's point. There are now 18 Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee nominations pending on the Senate floor 
that have received unanimous support in this committee. And I 
want to compliment the chairman. The chairman has moved these 
nominations properly, given fair hearings and consideration by 
the full committee, and cannot obviously control the Senate 
floor.
    It is difficult to predict how we can move issues on the 
Senate floor, and I understand that. But I do think the point 
that Senator McConnell, who does control how we consider 
nominations on the Senate floor, that we do have 18 
nominations, including Gayle Smith, which is critically 
important for the Syrian refugee issue as well as many other 
issues that we are confronting on the global side. I do--I 
think, though, that we should move forward now, and I would ask 
that we take the 10 nominations en bloc and then get to the 
Roberta Jacobson nomination.
    The Chairman.  That is what we will do. I think that is 
what the committee consensus is. I do want to just briefly say 
on Gayle Smith, we have attempted multiple solutions----
    Senator Shaheen. Yes. No, and I appreciate it.
    The Chairman:--and it is has been sort of a moving target. 
But we are continuing to work on that and hope that very soon 
we will come to some kind of resolve. But believe me, it is a--
it is a multiple days each week effort, and hopefully we will 
get there at some point soon. So I am sympathetic to your 
comment.
    So what I would like to do is move the other nominations en 
bloc. That would be Linda Etim, assistant administrator of 
USAID; Mr. Mark Sievers, ambassador to Oman; Ms. Elisabeth 
Millard, ambassador to Tajikstan; Mr. Kenneth Ward to the U.S. 
Representative of the Organization for the Prohibition of 
Chemical Weapons; the Honorable Deborah R. Malac to be 
ambassador to Uganda; Ms. Lisa Peterson to be ambassador to 
Swaziland; Mr. Dean Pittman to be ambassador to Mozambique; Mr. 
Peter Bodde to be ambassador to Libya; Mr. Don Morton to be 
executive vice president of the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation; and the Honorable Thomas Shannon to be 
undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. And I want to 
thank everybody for cooperating and adding him to the agenda.
    If we could--with all these--these are--I would love to 
have a motion to vote on those 10 en bloc.
    Senator Cardin. I so move.
    The Chairman.  A second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and now we will move to 
the nomination of Roberta Jacobson to be ambassador to Mexico. 
And I know that there are some people that want to make 
comments, and with that, I will move quickly to Senator 
Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
for the 10 years that I have served on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, I have taken the role of advise and 
consent of State Department nominees very seriously, whether it 
was a nominee for Secretary of State or a nominee to represent 
the United States at one of the most distant outposts. From one 
end of the spectrum to the other, I have delved into the 
individual's views, experience, as well as their willingness to 
be open, direct, truthful, and consultative as critical 
elements of whether they would earn my support and my vote for 
confirmation.
    I carried the same standard whether I was simply a member 
of the committee or its past chairman. And even where I 
disagree with a nominee's views, especially if they were just 
espousing the views of the administration, I would often 
support them if the other elements I considered important were 
present. In the case of Ms. Jacobson, I cannot in good 
conscience support her nomination to such a critical post, and 
let me state why for the record.
    When I met Ms. Jacobson for her present position of 
assistant secretary of State, I stressed the importance to me 
of consultation and openness to questions and requests for 
information. She acknowledged the importance of such and 
committed to doing so. At her nomination hearing for assistant 
secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, which I chaired, 
I raised the question of underfunding of the Western Hemisphere 
accounts as well as the IDB, the only regional bank that did 
not get an increase at the time, and of authoritarian trends in 
the Western Hemisphere, and asked what she would do to reverse 
those trends as the assistant secretary. I did so recognize 
that as the deputy assistant secretary for the Western 
Hemisphere, she would have had a role in these issues, but 
obviously not with the same authority. And while I was not 
convinced by her answers, both in terms of openness or in terms 
of substance, I was willing to give her the benefit of the 
doubt.
    As the assistant secretary of State for the Western 
Hemisphere, I found her not to be the advocate she promised to 
be for the region and against the authoritarianism that has 
only grown in the hemisphere. And I found her, even more 
importantly, not to be all that consultative or forthcoming as 
to informational requests. Information coming from her came 
only after constant questioning and repeated information 
requests. In essence, she was not the open, direct, and 
consultative leader I had expected.
    By way of example of these concerns are her responses in a 
hearing I held as chairman on human rights in Venezuela on May 
8th of 2014. In a question I posed, which I am going to read 
from the record, I asked, ``Madam Secretary, President Obama 
has determined that Venezuela has failed to meet its obligation 
under international narcotics agreements. The Treasury 
Department has designated members of the Venezuelan government 
and military as kingpins. And the drugs flowing out of 
Venezuela have debilitating effects on levels of violence, 
governance, and the rule of law in Central America and the 
Caribbean. Given the widespread signs of collusion between drug 
trafficking and the Venezuelan government, does the situation 
in Venezuela constitute a national security threat to the 
United States?''
    Her answers all hedged and were only basic. It took a 
series of follow-up questions to pierce through her answers and 
finally get to the conclusion that, yes, it was a national 
security threat, something, by the way, the President had made 
a determination on.
    Furthermore, I specifically asked whether she had been 
asked by the Venezuelan civil society not to have us pursue 
sanctions for human rights abuses in Venezuela as we were 
contemplating pursuing sanctions legislatively, and her answer 
was yes. And I pursued her on this because she had said so in 
answer to the questions of other members, and I knew that was 
not the case, and I wanted to give her the opportunity to 
clarify the record.
    She doubled down on her answer, and soon after the hearing 
closed, social media exploded in Venezuela by civil society 
groups condemning the statement and vehemently saying it was 
not true. She subsequently asked me to change her answer, which 
I allowed her to do for the record, but the damage had been 
done.
    Subsequently, at her July 15th, 2015 nomination hearing for 
U.S. ambassador to Mexico, I pursued a line of questioning as 
to why the United States did not request extradition of Joachim 
Gomez, known as El Chapo, until two years after he was captured 
in February of 2013. She evasively said that I had to go to the 
Justice Department to get an answer, but upon further 
questioning acknowledged that the State Department and its 
lawyers are involved in the extradition process. This from the 
person who is in charge of the Western Hemisphere and the 
nominee to be the ambassador to Mexico.
    I also revisited the question of whether we considered 
Venezuela a national security threat, especially in light of 
new information we had. And she said it was not a national 
security threat, totally opposite of what she--what she had 
told me a year before.
    I further pursued the issue of human rights sanctions in 
Venezuela, and I want to read from the transcript. ``You know, 
when I have individuals who are brought before the committee 
for the advise and consent of the Senate, I take it very 
seriously.'' This is me speaking at the hearing. ``And one of 
the elements I take very seriously is I am going to get fair, 
honest, transparent answers to my questions so that I can make 
judgments on the issues I am called upon as a U.S. Senator and 
as a senior member of this committee to make judgments on.
    In the hearing on Venezuela, I asked you whether or not the 
opposition of Venezuela, as you had stated, was actually 
opposed to us pursuing sanctions. And I would parenthetically 
note for the committee this was particularly important because 
at the time the committee was considering sanctions legislation 
on Venezuela. Your answer to me at that time was the opposition 
elements engaged in the current dialogue had suggested we 
refrain from sanctions against individuals guilty of human 
rights violations.
    Now, that was not the case, and you ultimately made it very 
difficult for me at a moment when I was trying to understand 
what would be the consequences. I thought that the sanctions 
that ultimately the President signed were the right ones, but 
you created a doubt, a doubt that should not have been there 
because then I heard a chorus of voices from the opposition in 
Venezuela who said, no, we never said that.
    So if I am going to look to advise of consent and vote 
affirmatively for someone, I need honest, open, and transparent 
answers, and I do not feel that I got that from you at the 
time.''
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I also have serious concerns that 
the nominee, who has admitted that she weighed in on the 
Trafficking in Persons Report, was influential in having Cuba 
removed from its Tier 3 designation without any appropriate 
justification. I think the members of this committee know how 
passionate I am about the integrity of the TIP Report, and the 
general sentiment that exists on the committee among all 
members that this year's TIP Report was politicized.
    So, Mr. Chairman, Mexico is one of the most important 
bilateral relationships we have, not only in the Western 
Hemisphere, but in the world. The U.S. ambassador to Mexico 
plays an instrumental role in helping to forge any stronger 
partnership between our two nations, and the decision we make 
on this nomination is consequently one of the most important we 
face.
    From expansive trade and economic issues, to amnesty 
issues, to immigration, drug trafficking, and human rights, we 
need someone who will be open, honest, transparent, and 
consultative with us as we in the Senate continue to formulate 
policies and views to our neighbor in the south. I do not have 
that experience with this nominee, nor the belief that having 
given her previous opportunities to assuage my concerns, that 
she will do so.
    For these reason and other examples which I will not 
belabor the committee with, I will be voting no.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you for those comments, well 
thought out. And I do want to say I thank the entire committee 
for everyone's concern about the TIP Report that has been 
expressed, and I think there will be certainly changes in the 
State Department in the future regarding that. Senator Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Roberta 
Jacobson is a well-respected career civil servant. She is the 
current assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. And 
at a time when there is so much criticism that ambassadors are 
selected because of their political connections, I think we 
should support her.
    If you go back to her career, it actually started with 
Ronald Reagan. She worked at the State Department as a younger 
woman. She worked for George Herbert Walker Bush, President 
Clinton, George W. Bush, and now President Obama. It seems to 
me this is someone that we ought to look toward with favor.
    In her three-decade career she was worked tirelessly, and 
has extensive experience working in the Western Hemisphere, 
five years as the director of Mexican Affairs. That was during 
the George W. Bush time. And I want to point out this, just is 
I think it would make us proud to see the first woman to serve 
as ambassador to Mexico. I think that would show Mexico the way 
on equality.
    And I think that her nomination, and I listened to my 
colleague, friend. You know, it is tied up over personal 
differences, and I do not think--what we want here is someone, 
whoever they work for, whichever administration it is, if they 
are a diplomat to carry out the views of whether it is the 
Reagan administration, Bush, Clinton, here. That is what they 
are supposed to do.
    I also want to point out that coming from California, where 
we are 40 million strong almost, our ties to Mexico are so 
important. And the economic ties, and the problems we have with 
drug trafficking, all of this needs a strong person who has 
credibility because she is not political.
    I hope--I do not know what the votes are. I have not done 
my own count, but I sure hope we can get her moving forward 
today. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Are there any comments?
    Senator Isakson. Yes.
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman, I will brief because I 
respect the committee's time. I informed the administration on 
three separate occasions in the last month that I would be 
reluctant to let Ms. Jacobson to move forward. And I have not 
gotten an answer one way or another out of the Justice 
Department as to why they have not spent the money necessary to 
compensate the Iran hostages from 1979.
    Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, Senator Corker, and 
others know how hard we have worked on that legislation. It is 
my understanding with their effort and money already deposited 
and being held by the Justice Department, that compensation 
could be made to those 43 surviving hostages that are American.
    Last week was the 36th anniversary of them being captured 
and held for 444 brutal days in Tehran, Iran. We are this close 
to seeing to it they are compensated, and I am going to follow 
through on my--I do not like to call it a threat--my objection 
to the administration until they can get on board and help us 
to see to it the compensation takes place.
    The Chairman.  I appreciate Senator Isakson saying that. I 
do not know of anybody who has worked harder to bring justice 
to these people. And I think we are very close----
    Senator Isakson. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  But, you know, obviously we have got House 
and Senate issues. We have had some blue slip issues. But 
hopefully in light of all that has happened with the Iran 
agreement and where we are today, we are going to get this 
resolved soon. And, again, nobody has been more diligent, more 
thoughtful, and more persistent, and I thank you for those 
efforts. And I understand why you are voting the way you are 
today.
    I do strongly support Roberta. I realize the vote may be 
close today, but I believe she is highly qualified, and do 
appreciate the fact that a career officer is being nominated 
for this position. Senator Flake?
    Senator Flake. I just want to say from an Arizonan, I think 
we need an ambassador to Mexico. We have waited long enough. We 
have tremendous, you know, ties to the country, trade, and 
commerce, and we need what she will bring to bear. And I have 
dealt with her over the years, and I have found her to be 
nothing but professional. And she is a top notch Foreign 
Service officer, so I am very pleased to support her 
nomination.
    The Chairman.  Very good. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. First, I deeply respect Senator Menendez. I 
do not think there is a member of the United States Senate who 
is more knowledgeable on our hemisphere than Senator Menendez, 
so I deeply respect his views. I know his passion on these 
issues. He and I share a common objective in regard to human 
rights advancements, so I do not want anything I say to 
compromise my deep respect and admiration for Senator 
Menendez's leadership on these issues. We do differ on certain 
policies in our hemisphere, Cuba being one in particular where 
we have just a different view on the issues.
    In regards to Roberta Jacobson, I would just give you my 
observations of a person who has devoted her career to public 
service. As a member of the United States Senate and as a 
member of this committee, now as ranking Democrat on this 
committee, I have found her to be always open, always 
straightforward, and I have had no problems in consultation in 
getting the information that I need. So I just really want to 
put that on the record because I do believe she is a career 
diplomat who takes her responsibilities very seriously.
    I do not know of a person who is more qualified to be 
ambassador to Mexico. She knows this hemisphere. She knows the 
party--the countries that surround. She served in Peru. She 
served in Mexico. She served as assistant secretary for this 
hemisphere. She is a person imminently qualified. She is a 
person who is deeply respected by the people of Mexico. I mean, 
if we are talking about who is going to be our representative 
down there, it is good to have a person who has the credibility 
of the host country.
    So I would just urge the members of this committee to allow 
us to have a confirmed ambassador. I think Senator Flake's 
point is very well taken. This is our neighbor, Mexico. We need 
to have a confirmed ambassador of Mexico. She is knowledgeable 
on the trade issues. She is knowledgeable on the human rights 
issues. She is knowledgeable on the economic issues. She is 
knowledgeable on the drug trafficking issues. And we need a 
confirmed ambassador in this position to represent U.S. 
interests.
    The Chairman.  Are we ready to vote? The nomination before 
us is that of Roberta Jacobson to be ambassador to Mexico. Is 
there a motion to approve her?
    Senator Boxer. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded. I know it is a roll call 
vote, so if the clerk will call the roll, I would appreciate 
it.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  Yes by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boxer?
    Senator Boxer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12, the noes are 
seven.
    The Chairman.  So she will be recommended to the Senate--
the full Senate along with the other 10 nominees. I want to 
thank everybody for their thoughtful comments in moving these 
along.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just want to 
underscore the point you made with Senator Isakson. There has 
been no stronger member for the justice in regards to 
compensation for the Iran hostages. And I just join you in 
looking for a way that we can get this to the finish line. We 
strongly support this. There are a couple of opportunities we 
think are coming up, and I am strongly supportive of any effort 
we can to get Senator Isakson's bill to the finish line.
    Senator Isakson. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman.  Very good. Next we will consider two 
resolutions en bloc by voice vote. The first resolution is S. 
Res. 310, and calls upon the President to condemn the ongoing 
sexual violence against women and children, Yazidi, Christian, 
and Shabak, Turkmen, and other religious communities by the 
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants, and to urge the 
prosecution and perpetrators of these complicit--those 
complicit in these crimes. I want to thank Senator Johnson for 
bringing this resolution to the committee.
    The second resolution expresses the sense of the Senate in 
support Israel and condemnation of Palestinian terror attacks. 
This resolution has 46 co-sponsors. I want to thank Senator 
Ayotte and Senator Blumenthal for working on this. Senator 
Cardin, I know you made some comments earlier. Do you want to 
make additional comments?
    Senator Cardin. I would just urge the members to support 
the resolutions.
    The Chairman.  Does anyone want to speak----
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 
including the resolution in the markup. I want to thank my co-
sponsors, Senator Murphy, Senator Rubio, Senator Ayotte, and 
Senator Kirk. You have already described the resolution 
adequately.
    I do want to point out, I am not sure whether anybody else 
on this committee met with Bazi, the young Yazidi woman who 
came here to describe her horrors. Probably the thing that made 
the greatest impression on me is she described the hope she 
felt when she was first captured, knowing the U.S. was going to 
come to save her, then as the days and weeks went by, less and 
less hope. Finally she began, you know, some suicide attempts. 
So this is--you know, what is happening in the Islamic State is 
beyond brutal, and this is a small measure. This is the least 
we can do, so I certainly urge support.
    And then a little off subject, but I was just in Guatemala 
and Honduras, and I am so supportive of what, you know, some of 
your efforts and this committee's efforts in terms of combating 
and battling against human trafficking. We visited a shelter 
for victims of sexual abuse and sex trafficking, and, you know, 
we talk about them as victims. In my mind, I think of young 
women like Bazi, like, I believe, was in her early 20s.
    In Honduras it was not--it was not--or in Guatemala it was 
not young women. They were little girls.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Johnson. This was a--this was a shelter for little 
girls. The youngest was 11. The oldest was probably 16. The 
average age may be around 14. There were cribs. So this is--
this is beyond brutal. This is beyond barbaric.
    And so, again, this is what we--this is what we are 
battling. This is the evil we are battling in this world. This 
is the least we can do. And so, I certainly urge support for 
this resolution, but I also urge support for, you know, the 
type of actions we need to support President Obama's stated 
goal of defeating--degrading and ultimately defeating ISIS. The 
sooner the better to purge this world of that--of that 
barbarity. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you for those heartfelt 
comments. Senator Kaine?
    The Chairman.  And let me, if could, and for your 
leadership on this with Senator Murphy and others. And I just--
27 million people today as we are sitting here enslaved, more 
than any time in the history of the world. So this committee I 
think has a tremendous opportunity as we move forward over the 
next six weeks to ensure that the bill we pass out of here has 
funding. I think that is going to be the case, but I cannot 
thank everyone on this committee enough for caring as 
compassionately as Senator Johnson just laid out in their 
concerns about people who are enslaved and dealing with these 
types of issues.
    Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I am going to support 
both of these resolutions, in fact, all four that are before us 
today. This is productive committee: four resolutions, eight 
treaties, 11 nominations. It was productive under the previous 
chair.
    Since one of these resolutions does deal with the Islamic 
State, and I know we are going to move into a separate session 
about it later, I just want to put sort of on the table it is 
the Marine Corps birthday. Veterans Day is tomorrow.
    Senator Flake and I have a bipartisan resolution dealing 
with an authorization for military action against the Islamic 
State, the perpetrator of these horrible sex crimes, covered by 
the S. Res. that Senator Johnson has introduced. We have had it 
on the table for five months now. The war is now 15 months old. 
The President sent us an authorization nine months ago.
    It is my sincere hope that the hearing that we are about to 
go into where we will in a classified setting get into the 
legal authority question, might give us some insight or, you 
know, creative thinking about the way we can move forward and 
do what I think we might do and what I know what would be 
appreciated. Whether folks, you know, believe it is 
constitutionally required or not, I know it would be 
appreciated by our troops, our allies, and it would be 
understood by our adversaries as a strong statement of 
congressional opposition. So many of these atrocities are just 
so beyond the pale. You know, in a world that produces one 
atrocity after the next, they are just beyond the pale, and I 
worry about our silence on that score.
    I would just like to--I will hand out to colleagues a group 
of 35 House members, bipartisan, has recently written a letter 
to the Speaker saying it is really time with the mutating 
nature of this threat, the number of countries involved, the 
U.S. taxpayer expenditure that is now including of people 
serving in combat, it is time for us to kind of grapple with 
it. And I just would like to distribute that to colleagues.
    The Chairman.  Sure.
    Senator Kaine. And I will look forward to further 
discussion at the next hearing that we will have.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Thank you for your consistency and Senator 
Flake's. And I assure you since sometimes I do not ask 
questions at these. I let others go first. The first question I 
am going to ask is, you know, do we have the legal authorities 
necessary to move ahead, and I am sure that will be a theme 
this morning. So thank you for bringing that up. Senator 
Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Senator 
Johnson for this resolution. I think it is a very important 
resolution for us to act on. What ISIS is doing is crimes 
against. We have talked about this several times in our 
committee about holding accountable those who commit these 
atrocities. These are atrocities that demand international 
action, and I am proud to see that this committee is going to 
on record with this resolution.
    The Chairman.  Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Murphy. I just want to add my thanks for bringing 
the Johnson resolution before us today. Happy to work with him. 
I am sorry I did not catch the ranking member's opening 
comments that may have been relevant to the second resolution 
that we are considering.
    I would just note that my understanding is that this was 
added at about 7:00 last night so that when a lot of us 
reviewed the business we were going to take up yesterday at the 
end of the day, we did not get to take a look at this 
resolution. And, you know, the words that we use when we are 
talking about violence in the Middle East is as important as it 
gets here.
    And so, you have been imminently fair and accommodating of 
minority and the rank and file members, and so this is anomaly, 
but my hope is that we would in the future get a little bit 
more time because I frankly think this resolution can be 
better. I am going to support it today.
    I will give you a for instance that it is incredibly 
important that we state in this resolution that we are 
rejecting the moral equivalency of terrorist attacks versus 
Israeli security personnel, just sticking up and standing up 
against that violence. But it probably would not hurt for this 
committee to be on record as condemning the taking of innocent 
life, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian. I think there is 
some--there are some additions to this resolution that had we 
had some more time, we could have made it better.
    I am happy to support it and move it to the floor, but I 
just wanted to ask for your accommodation in the future of 
giving us a little bit more time to talk about these things.
    The Chairman.  I appreciate you bringing that up, and, you 
know, in a way this was an accommodation of sorts. I know they 
were trying to pass this on the floor today, and this was 
Senator Blumenthal and Ayotte jointly pushing this. And I just 
felt like it was much better for it come to our committee and 
for us to continue to have our jurisdiction on these matters.
    And I agree with you, by the way, there is some language in 
here that could be better, and I might add it is possible 
that--I know close of business comes at the end of the day 
today, but it is possible that some of those changes might even 
be agreed to. We want to try to work with Kelly and Blumenthal 
before it goes to the floor, so I think they would open to 
that.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much. Okay. Gosh, I 
appreciate the interest and seriousness with which we are 
conducting our business.
    I would like to have a motion to approve both of these 
resolutions en bloc if one exists.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of 
ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    So I think that is it. So those passed will move to the 
floor.
    Next we will consider S. 2184, Foreign Aid Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2015. I want to thank the original 
creators of this bill, Senator Rubio and Cardin, along with 
Congressman Ted Poe and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 
This bill establishes in law regulations from State and USAID 
and applies them to 22 agencies that administer U.S. foreign 
development and economic assistance programs.
    I am recommending some technical changes along with a sense 
of the Senate section which is intended to maximize efficiency 
between State and USAID. Senator Cardin, do you have any 
additional comments?
    Senator Cardin. I commented on the bill in the opening 
statement. Thank you for advancing this bill.
    The Chairman.  Anyone else like to speak to this 
legislation? Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. I will just briefly as a co-sponsor thank 
you for moving this on today's agenda, and just say I 
appreciate the work of the co-sponsors to make sure that we 
continue to emphasize to the American people that we are 
insisting on measurable outcomes, transparency, and impacts in 
our foreign aid investments.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir.
    Senator Markey. If I may, I would also say that while this 
has been non-security, I think we should also think about 
talking about more transparency in our security spending as 
well so that everyone in the country, including this committee, 
can understand better what is going on. And I think the more 
that we focus on that, we might get at really the heart of what 
is in the soul of people all across America right now. So more 
transparency in that I think it would be a good discussion for 
this committee to be taken at some point. But with that, I 
support the resolution.
    The Chairman.  Thank you so much. I would entertain a 
motion that we consider the substitute amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded.
    The question is the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and the 
substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is to approve S. 2184, the Foreign Aid and 
Transparency--Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act 
of 2015, as amended.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is amended and agreed to.
    Lastly, we will consider H.R. 515, International Megan's 
Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking.
    We want to thank the co-sponsors of this legislation, 
Representative Chris Smith, Senator Shelby, Senator Mikulski, 
for bringing this bill before the committee. I also want to 
thank Senator Cardin, Senator Johnson, Senator Markey, Senator 
Barrasso, and their staff for working with us on this bill. The 
substitute amendment before the committee was produced through 
extensive consultations with the interested executive 
departments, the bill sponsors, the Judiciary, and Homeland 
Security Committee staff.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments on this 
legislation?
    Senator Cardin. Again, I commented about this on our--in my 
opening comments, and I urge colleagues to support the bill.
    The Chairman.  Anyone else want to speak to it? [No 
response.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
take up the revised manager's amendment to the substitute 
circulated just before this meeting, which ensures the 
improvements from Senator Markey are directly included.
    All right. Without objection, then that is what we are 
taking up. Is there a motion to approve?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  And with that, the ayes--all opposed. [No 
response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The amendment is--the bill 
is agreed to.
    Okay. I think--are we good? I know that was somewhat 
confusing. We have a title amendment----
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, that includes my amendment 
with your secondary.
    The Chairman.  That is right. That is right.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay.
    The Chairman.  Thank you so much for working with us on 
that. Okay. I need my staff's assistance here as we move to 
the----
    Senator Cardin. I just want to acknowledge Senator 
Barrasso's work. I thought your addition was a very important 
one on accountability, so thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. And I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, when Congress creates new programs, I think it is 
important that we provide the safeguards to protect innocent 
individuals who are mistakenly targeted. We have seen it with 
no fly lists where people mistakenly are included.
    And I would go as far as to say not just file a complaint, 
but also be compensated for expenses. I know there are some 
issues with the Justice Department with compensation, but I 
think this amendment actually strengthens what we are trying to 
do here and helps protect innocent individuals wrongfully 
listed by somebody checking the wrong box or making a mistake 
along the process. So thank you.
    The Chairman.  I think there are numbers of us that had 
concerns about that. I think you all did a great job in 
addressing that. And, you know, while we want to combat this in 
every way that we can, we also do not want to citizens 
unfortunately put on a list they are not supposed to be on, and 
having difficulty getting off. That is correct. So, look, I am 
sorry we had to walk through this, but----
    If there is no further discussion, I would like to 
entertain a motion to consider the title change amendment by 
voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is to 
approve the title amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    Next, I would like to entertain a motion to consider the 
manager's amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the manager's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's 
amendment is agreed to.
    Now, I would entertain a motion that we consider the 
substitute amendment, as amended by the manager's amendment. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the substitute amendment, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The substitute amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Boxer. Second.
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve H.R. 515, as amended.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The 
legislation, as amendment--as amended is agreed to.
    And that completes the committee's business. I ask 
unanimous consent--and this is important--that the record be 
held open for five business days so that staff be authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes and member statements. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Boxer. Well, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not, would you repeat everything you just said? 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  I would be more than happy to. And with 
that, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    STATEMENT FOR RECORD FROM SENATOR MARCO RUBIO REFERRING TO THE 
      NOMINATION OF ROBERTA JACOBSON AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MEXICO

    I have always taken seriously my ``advice and consent'' 
role in the Senate on nominations made by the President. I 
believe that America must be represented around the world by 
the very best ambassadors and that is especially true for the 
next U.S. ambassador to Mexico, our second-largest trading 
partner.
    In evaluating nominees to such important positions, I 
examine several key factors, including: the nominees' 
qualifications for their anticipated roles; the nominees' track 
records; and their honesty and candor in answering questions 
posed to them during the confirmation process.
    During her confirmation process to be U.S. ambassador to 
Mexico, Roberta Jacobson, the current Assistant Secretary of 
State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, refused to provide 
several documents I requested, and failed to provide clear 
answers to questions I asked about specific decisions she was 
involved in--or major events that occurred in the Western 
Hemisphere--during her tenure.
    It took three attempts for Jacobson to answer a 
straightforward question regarding her role in the extradition 
process for the most notorious drug lord in the Western 
Hemisphere. Ultimately, she admitted that the Obama 
administration did not formally request the extradition of ``El 
Chapo'' Guzman until June 2015 -one year and four months after 
he had been arrested and just a month before he escaped from a 
Mexican prison.
    On Jacobson's watch, at her bureau's request, the State 
Department manipulated Cuba's ranking in its annual 
``trafficking in persons report''--sending a chilling signal 
about the integrity of U.S. human trafficking assessments of a 
country that investigations have shown to be one of the top 
destinations in the Americas for sex tourism.
    Jacobson misrepresented the views of Venezuela's pro-
democracy movement on human rights sanctions, demonstrated a 
lack of interest in seeing the sanctions law fully implemented, 
and was slow to respond to abuses committed by the Maduro 
regime.
    Since President Obama announced his new Cuba policy on 
December 17, 2014, Jacobson has testified before Congress on 
various occasions that the U.S. would continue to prioritize 
human rights as part of the reestablishment of diplomatic 
relations with Cuba. However, this has not been the case. In 
the last eleven months, thousands of Cubans have been arrested, 
beaten and jailed for peacefully advocating for democracy. The 
number of monthly political arrests has increased by nearly 
five-fold between January and October 2015.
    The Ladies in White, a civil society group that advocates 
for the release of political prisoners by attending Sunday Mass 
and then peacefully walking through the streets dressed in 
white clothing, have seen their members arrested every single 
week. The Cuban government has even engaged in violence against 
American citizens and Cuban civil society groups outside of the 
island, as was witnessed during the attacks at the Summit of 
the Americas in Panama.
    There has been absolutely no improvement in human rights in 
Cuba since President Obama's Cuba policy change was announced. 
To the contrary, repression has dramatically increased and has 
now been dangerously buoyed by a senior State Department 
official, who conceded during a recent interview that 
``Washington would not first demand human rights progress from 
Havana'' in exchange for a relaxation of the embargo. This 
clearly contradicts Jacobson's previous testimony about the 
priority that would be given to human rights in the new Cuba 
policy.
    It is clear that the Obama administration's foreign policy 
around the world, and specifically in the Western Hemisphere 
has been short-sighted and counter-productive. Our allies have 
been left to question the commitments we have made to them, 
while our adversaries have been emboldened to challenge the 
U.S. at every step. As the United States' lead diplomat for the 
Western Hemisphere, Roberta Jacobson has played a central role 
in that failure.
    In sum, Ms. Jacobson has refused to be forthcoming with 
Congress and has proven to be unprepared to handle significant 
policy decisions, which have transpired on her watch. We need 
an ambassador in Mexico City that has the trust of Congress for 
this important post. I do not believe that Ms. Jacobson is that 
person and will oppose her confirmation.
                              ----------                              


 STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RAND PAUL--REFERRING TO 
              THE TREATIES CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

    Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin, thank you for 
the opportunity to discuss the multiple tax treaties that are 
being considered by the committee.
    As you know, I have been a critic of these treaties. Last 
year when the committee considered these tax treaties I voiced 
my objection to them because of the invasion of privacy these 
treaties represent. I do not disagree with many of the 
beneficial taxation opportunities afforded therein, but these 
treaties are an encroachment upon our constitutional rights to 
privacy.
    The American right to privacy is perpetually being 
diminished. Our government is monitoring your email or cell 
phone, and they're increasingly monitoring your bank account 
records--among the most private of an individual's possessions. 
Your bank account is the epitome of who you are as a private 
citizen; a bank account tells me where you're shopping, what 
foods you like, the medicines you're taking, the doctors you're 
visiting, and the places you're traveling. This warrantless 
compiling of financial data is akin to NSA's bulk collection of 
personal information. Tax treaty bulk collection is just as 
egregious.
    At the very least, every American--whether at home or 
abroad--deserve the right to the Fourth amendment protections 
guaranteed by the Constitution.
    Many of the previous tax treaties were more focused on 
information specific to suspicions of tax fraud while providing 
that serious allegations of tax wrongdoing were grounded in 
evidence. However, the new treaties demand information under a 
vague new standard that allows the government to access 
personal financial information that ``may be relevant.'' 
Government access to an US citizens bank records, under a much 
lower and ambiguous threshold, put innocent Americans as risk 
of having private information exploited.
    Of equal concern, it appears that these treaties may end up 
being the tool that implements a domestic law known as the 
Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. In short, this 
bill punishes every single overseas financial institution with 
a 30 percent withholding tax unless they send the IRS the 
private records of overseas American bank holders--no questions 
asked, and no reasonable suspicion or due diligence required.
    The Democrats passed this egregious law under the false 
narrative of catching tax cheats. However, it has led the 
international community to simply shut its doors and deny 
banking services to the 7 million law-abiding, innocent 
Americans citizens with bank accounts who work overseas. 
Marylouise Serrate, executive director of American Citizens 
Aboard, noted recently in the International Business Times, 
``many (foreign) banks, regardless of inter-government 
agreements. seem to be taking a decision that it's just easier 
not to provide service to American clients.''
    The economic consequences to the US may be even greater. 
Foreign financial institutions are pushing back and have a 
message to their domestic customers: divest in US interests. 
According to American Citizens Abroad, nearly $21 trillion of 
direct foreign investments that have flowed into the US are at 
risk.
    The one great flaw in the FATCA legislation is that it is a 
domestic law seeking to impose rules upon foreign countries. 
For the IRS, the obvious remedy to entice countries to go along 
with our domestic laws has been to offer up reciprocal 
exchanges of private citizen's information.
    In other words, to make FATCA function, the US will require 
US banks to report on their customers and in return, 
information retrieved through bulk collection will be 
transmitted to foreign governments. Someday your government may 
be sending your private bank account information to a foreign 
country like Russia. For the American taxpayer, worrying about 
the tax bulk collection of financial records is probably more 
than enough.
    I want to make the record clear: I certainly do not condone 
those Americans who have not followed the letter of the law. 
But I can't support a law that endangers regular foreign 
investment and rounds up US citizen's financial records in 
pursuit of a few tax cheats. While I want the important 
benefits included in the tax treaties to be ratified, I have 
great concerns with allowing these treaties to advance if they 
will embolden FATCA or fail to provide constitutional privacy 
protections.
    I cannot support a treaty that could pave the way for a law 
that will permit the IRS to share the information of customers 
at US banks with foreign governments; nor can I support a 
treaty that may facilitate the bulk collection of private 
financial information of all US citizens living abroad.
    But most importantly, I cannot support a treaty that has 
complete disregard for the important protections provided by 
the Fourth Amendment.
    As these treaties advance in the Senate, I will continue to 
examine ways to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of all 
Americans, to limit the reach of the ``exchange of 
information'' language, and to prevent these treaties from 
being utilized as the legal mechanism to implement FATCA.
    I look forward to continuing to work on this important 
issue and fight tax bulk collection.



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 8, 2015

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Johnson, Flake, 
Gardner, Perdue, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, and 
Kaine.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    The Chairman.  I am going to go ahead and call the business 
meeting to order and thank all those for being here. And what I 
thought we might do is go through our opening comments and have 
them out of the way so when we have a quorum we can move 
quickly through the--through the calendar if that is all right, 
Ranking Member.
    Senator Cardin. Absolutely.
    The Chairman.  Okay. The business meeting of the Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. We have a number of 
items on the agenda today, including three pieces of 
legislation, 10 nominations, and five Foreign Service lists.
    The first resolution, S. Res. 189, expresses the sense of 
the Senate regarding the 25th anniversary of democracy in 
Mongolia. We want to thank Senators Whitehouse and McCain for 
their work on this, and congratulate the people of Mongolia on 
this significant milestone in their country's enduring 
commitment to democracy.
    We have S. Res. 326, which celebrates the 135th anniversary 
of the U.S. and Romania diplomatic relations. Given the serious 
challenges that currently face Europe, the U.S., and the world, 
it is important to show friends like Romania that we support 
them. I want to thank Senator Johnson and Senator Shaheen for 
your work on this particular resolution.
    We also are going to consider S. Res 320 congratulating the 
people of Burma on their commitment to peaceful elections. I 
would like to thank Senators McCain, McConnell, and Durbin for 
introducing this important and timely resolution. As most of my 
colleagues know, the Republican leader has played an invaluable 
role in U.S. policy towards Burma over the years. I also want 
to thank Senator Cardin, Senator Gardner and their staff for 
working with on a substitute amendment, one to correct a 
technical piece in the preamble, and others to signify the 
importance of working with Congress on future issues relative 
to Burma.
    Lastly, we are going to consider 10 nominations and five 
Foreign Service lists today. I realize there are three 
potential nominees not included on the agenda: Amos Hochstein 
to be assistant secretary for Energy Resources, Scott Marciel 
to be ambassador to Burma, and Laura Holgate to be U.S. 
representative to the IAEA and to the Vienna Office of the UN. 
We hope to work through some issues we found with these 
nominees and put them on the agenda as soon as we get back.
    And with that, I want to thank Senator Cardin and everybody 
on this committee for working with us the way they have, and 
certainly would like to hear his comments.

             STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just looking 
around to see how many people are here.
    The Chairman.  Nine.
    Senator Cardin. I think we are one short, so I will----
    The Chairman.  Okay.
    Senator Cardin [continuing.] give a longer opening 
statement. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Let me--let me thank you for the way that 
you have accommodated the nominations, the 10 nominees that we 
will be taking up, and your explanation. I understand there is 
still some additional information to the remaining three, and 
that is certainly very much understandable. And I hope we can 
work through them quickly and also take action perhaps somehow 
before the end of this session and still get them through the 
Congress before the end of the year--Senate before the end of 
the year.
    But I really thank you for your cooperation. I hope that we 
can accommodate these nominees on the floor of the United 
States Senate. And with that, let me thank on all three of the 
resolutions that we have before us. They are very important, 
ones I fully support, and I congratulate the members who are 
involved.
    And I see we have 10 members.
    The Chairman.  Thank you for those brief comments that were 
made even more brief by Senator Gardner showing up.
    First, I would like to consider the two resolutions, S. 
Res. 189 and S. Res. 326, en bloc by voice vote. Do you have 
any comments you would like to make on these resolutions?
    Senator Cardin. Well, they are both very important, key 
progress and key allies that we have, and I urge our colleagues 
to support them.
    The Chairman.  Any other comments by others? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Thank all. If there is no further 
discussion, I would entertain a motion to approve by voice vote 
en bloc.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 189 and S. 
Res. 326.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the resolutions are 
approved.
    Next, we will consider S. Res. 320. Anyone like to speak to 
this resolution? Senator Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, this is the Burma 
resolution?
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, again, I think what we have 
watched and seen in Burma over the last several months has been 
exciting as the election results, I think, overwhelmed even the 
most studied scholar in Burma. And people are watching the 
elections, the results I think with great anticipation of what 
it means over the transition and the seating of the government 
by April.
    Obviously we want to make sure that the tools and the 
leverage that the United States has is not given away in 
effect, and it leaves us with no ways to make sure that the 
transition occurs properly and to make sure that it is put in 
place by April. And so, I would just express my gratitude to 
the committee for including language in the resolution that 
makes sure that consultation and advise and consent of the 
Senate and Congress is adhered to as we move through this 
transition period of the election.
    The Chairman.  Well, I want to thank you for that very 
constructive input. And I do not know if anyone else would wish 
to speak to this?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me just say as I wear two 
hats here also as the ranking on the Pacific Southeast Asia 
Subcommittee. And Burma has made tremendous progress, there is 
no question about it. And this resolution recognizes that, and 
I applaud the sponsors of this resolution and for the manner of 
bringing it forward.
    They still have many hurdles ahead of us, as we pointed out 
during the hearing. And I think the modifications we made in 
the resolution is a balanced resolution, and I strongly support 
it.
    The Chairman.  If there is no further discussion, I would 
ask unanimous consent to consider the substitute amendment that 
includes edits from the chair and the East Asia Subcommittee.
    Senator Gardner. So moved.
    The Chairman.  So moved. I would entertain a motion to 
consider the substitute amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Gardner. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment is agreed to.
    Next, I will entertain a motion to consider the preamble 
amendment by voice vote. I am sorry, this is just the way we do 
things.
    Senator Gardner. So moved.
    The Chairman.  So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the preamble amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the resolution, as amended?
    Senator Gardner. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve S. Res. 320, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The 
legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    I will now ask the committee to proceed to an en bloc voice 
vote in consideration of 10 nominations before the committee: 
Ebert-Gray to Papua New Guinea, et al., Feeley to Panama; 
Taglialatela, ambassador to Barbados, et al.; Todd Chapman to 
be ambassador to Ecuador; Jean Manes to be ambassador El 
Salvador; Kathleen Hill to be ambassador to Malta; Rubin to be 
ambassador to Bulgaria; Scott to be ambassador to Serbia; 
McKean to be ambassador to Luxembourg; and Torres to be deputy 
director of the Peace Corps.
    I want to thank all these nominees for being willing to 
come into these positions for their--many of them for years and 
years of public service to our Nation. And, Senator Cardin, I 
am sure you have some comments.
    Senator Cardin. Well, again, I appreciate the quick manner 
in which these nominees were not only brought to a hearing, but 
also action in the committee. And I strongly support all the 
nominees.
    The Chairman.  Anyone else want to speak to these?
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly thank 
you for working in a bipartisan, collaborative way to move 
forward these nominees. I was just over at one of our missions 
in Europe and was reminded again of what the impact is when 
they do not have a confirmed ambassador. I heard a story of 
someone from Cameroon was unable to have any productive 
meetings for a year because we did not have a confirmed 
ambassador. So thank you for continuing to work on these.
    The Chairman.  Well, I want to thank the committee for 
continuing to work in such a bipartisan manner. And if there 
are no further discussion on these nominations, I would 
entertain a voice vote to pass them en bloc.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the nominations.
    All in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it. The nominations 
are recommended to the full Senate.
    And lastly, we will consider five Foreign Service officer 
lists. I support these appointments and promotions, and would 
like to thank all these officers for their fine service. 
Senator Cardin, do you have any comments?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Chairman.  Any comments by others on the Foreign 
Service lists? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I would entertain a motion that we consider 
the list en bloc, as modified by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Would someone like to make that?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there a second?
    Senator Johnson. Second.
    The Chairman.  So moved and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve five Foreign Service officer lists en 
bloc, as modified.
    All those in favor, say aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed? [No response.]
    The Chairman.  With that, the ayes have it, and the 
appointments and promotions are agreed to. And that completes 
the committee's business.
    I would ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized 
to make technical and conforming changes, and member 
statements. Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chairman.  And with that, without objection, the 
committee will stand adjourned as far as the business segment. 
And I want to thank you all again for being here and causing 
this to work so well for all involved. It is much appreciated.
    That part is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]