[Senate Prints 115-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress}                                            { S. Prt.                                 
 1st Session  }              COMMITTEE PRINT		   { 115-26

======================================================================
 
                           BUSINESS MEETINGS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                             First Session

                   January 3, 2017 to January 3, 2018


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                    
                               __________
                               

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
31-321 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, 
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected]




                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

                BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman        
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana                 CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
                  Todd Womack, Staff Director        
            Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        



                              (ii)        

  
                         C O N T E N T S

Information on the items on the agenda for each business meeting can be 

    found in the Chairman's and the Ranking Member's opening remarks

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page


January 11, 2017.................................................     1

Legislation

    S. Res. 6, A resolution objecting to the United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 2334 and to all efforts that undermine the direct 
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a secure and 
peaceful settlement--Held over to the next business meeting

Treaty

    Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of 
Montenegro, which was opened for signature at Brussels on May 19, 2016, 
and signed that day on behalf of the United States of America (Treaty 
Doc. 114-12)--Approved by voice vote

January 12, 2017.................................................     3

Legislation

    S. Res. 6, A resolution objecting to United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 2334 and to all efforts that undermine direct 
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for a secure and 
peaceful settlement, with an amendment--Approved by voice vote

January 23, 2017.................................................    19

Nomination

    Mr. Rex Wayne Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State--
Reported favorably by roll call vote: Ayes 11, Nays 10

January 24, 2017.................................................    37

Nomination


    Hon. Nikki R. Haley, of South Carolina, to be the U.S. 
Representative to the United Nations, the U.S. Representative in the 
Security Council of the United Nations, and to be the U.S. 
Representative to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United 
Nations during her tenure of service as U.S. Representative to the 
United Nations--Reported favorably by voice vote (Coons and Udall 
recorded as ``No'')

January 31, 2017.................................................    49

Committee Business

    Membership and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees, 115th Congress, 
without amendment--Approved by voice vote [S. Prt. 115-25]

    Rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 115th Congress, 
without amendment--Approved by voice vote [S. Prt. 115-23]

Legislation

    S. Res. 37, Authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Foreign 
Relations during the 115th Congress, without amendment--Approved by 
voice vote
March 9, 2017....................................................    55

Nomination

    Mr. David Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador to Israel--
Reported favorably by roll call vote: Ayes 12, Nays 9

April 6, 2017....................................................    61

Legislation

    S. Res. 116, A resolution condemning the Assad regime for its 
continued use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, with an 
amendment--Approved as amended by voice vote, (Paul recorded as 
``Present'')

May 3, 2017......................................................    63

Legislation

    H.R. 534--the U.S. Wants to Compete for a World Expo Act--Approved 
by a roll call vote: Ayes--14; Nays 6

May 9, 2017......................................................    67

Nominations

    Hon. Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to the People's 
Republic of China--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Senegal, and to serve concurrently and, without additional 
compensation, as Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau--Approved, 
en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Todd Philip Haskell, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of The Congo--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

Foreign Service Lists

    Alexander Dickie IV, dated March 21, 2017 (PN116); Joel Justin 
Agalsoff, et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN353); Edward Francis Acevedo, 
et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN354), as Modified; Jim Nelson Barnhart 
Jr., et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN355), as Modified; Jeffery S. 
Austin, et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN357), as modified--All 
approved, en bloc, by voice vote

May 16, 2017.....................................................    71

Nomination

    Hon. John J. Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of State 
for Management and Resources--Approved by voice vote

Foreign Service List

    Jeanne F. Bailey, et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN356); Scott S. 
Sindelar, dated April 25, 2017 (PN358), as modified--All approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

May 25, 2017.....................................................    73

Legislation

    S. 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, 
with a substitute amendment--Approved, as amended, by roll call vote: 
Ayes 18, Nays 3

    S. 1221, Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 
2017, with amendments--Approved, as amended, by roll call vote: Ayes 
20, Nays 1

    S. 905, Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2017, with 
amendments--Approved, as amended, en bloc, by voice vote

    H.R. 601, Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act--
Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    S. 1141, A bill to ensure that the United States promotes the 
meaningful participation of women in mediation and negotiation 
processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict, 
without amendments--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    S. Res. 114, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on 
humanitarian crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, with 
amendments--Approved, as amended, en bloc, by voice vote

    S. Res. 18, A resolution reaffirming the United States-Argentina 
partnership and recognizing Argentina's economic reforms, with 
amendments--Approved, as amended, en bloc, by voice vote
    S. Res. 176, A resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 
reunification of Jerusalem, without amendments--Approved, en bloc, by 
voice vote

Nomination

    Hon. Scott P. Brown, of New Hampshire, to be Ambassador to New 
Zealand, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 
as Ambassador to the Independent State of Samoa--Approved, en bloc, by 
voice vote

Foreign Service Lists

    Fred Aziz, et al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN359); David Gossack, et 
al., dated April 25, 2017 (PN360)--All approved, en bloc, by voice vote

June 7, 2017.....................................................   113

Nomination

    Mr. William Francis Hagerty, IV, of Tennessee, to be Ambassador to 
Japan--Approved by voice vote (Booker recorded as, ``No'')

July 12, 2017....................................................   117

Nomination

    Hon. Mark Andrew Green, of Wisconsin, to be Administrator of the 
United States Agency for International Development--Approved by voice 
vote

Foreign Service Lists:

    Andrew Anderson-Sprecher, et al., dated June 6, 2017 (PN580); 
Gabriela R. Arias Villela, et al., dated June 6, 2017 (PN579); Nicholas 
Raymond Abbate, et al., dated June 6, 2017 (PN578); Rameeth Hundle, et 
al., dated June 6, 2017 (PN 581); Andrew K. Abordonado, et al., dated 
June 29, 2017 (PN730)--All approved, en bloc, by voice vote

July 27, 2017....................................................   119

Legislation

    S. 1631, Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2018--
--Approved by voice vote with amendments (Paul, Menendez, Udall, 
Murphy, Kaine, and Booker recorded as ``No'')

Nominations

    Hon. David Steele Bohigian, of Missouri, to be Executive Vice 
President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, to be United States Permanent 
Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, with the rank and status of Ambassador--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Luis E. Arreaga, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Guatemala--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Ray Washburne, of Texas, to be President of the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote 
(Booker recorded as ``No'')

    Ms. Kelley Eckels Currie, of Georgia, to be U.S. Representative on 
the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of 
Ambassador, and to be an Alternate Representative to the Sessions of 
the General Assembly of the United Nations--Approved, en bloc, by voice 
vote

    Ms. Callista L. Gingrich, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Holy 
See--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote (Udall, Merkley, and Booker 
recorded as ``No'')

    Mr. Nathan Alexander Sales, of Ohio, to be Coordinator for 
Counterterrorism, with the rank and status of Ambassador at Large--
Approved, en bloc, by voice vote (Booker recorded as ``No'')

    Mr. George Edward Glass, of Oregon, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Portuguese 
Republic--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Carl C. Risch, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
State for Consular Affairs--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote (Menendez, 
Merkley, Udall, and Booker recorded as ``No'')

    Ms. Sharon Day, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
Costa Rica--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Krishna R. Urs, of Connecticut, to be the Ambassador to the 
Republic of Peru--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Kelly Knight Craft, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to Canada--
Approved, en bloc, by voice vote (Merkley and Booker recorded as 
``No'')

    Mr. Robert Wood Johnson IV, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Lewis M. Eisenberg, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Italian 
Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 
as Ambassador to the Republic of San Marino--Approved, en bloc, by 
voice vote (Merkley and Booker recorded as ``No'')

The following nomination was been held over:

    Mr. Jay Patrick Murray, of Virginia, to be Alternate Representative 
for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of 
Ambassador and to be an Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the 
General Assembly of the United Nations

August 3, 2017...................................................   143

Legislation

    S. 1697, Taylor Force Act, a bill to condition assistance to the 
West Bank and Gaza on steps by the Palestinian Authority to end 
violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens and United States 
Citizens.--Approved, with amendments, by roll call vote: Ayes 17, Nays 
4

Nominations

    Hon. Michael Arthur Raynor, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the 
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia--Approved, en bloc, by voice 
vote

    Ms. Maria E. Brewer, of Indiana, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Sierra Leone--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. John P. Desrocher, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria--Approved, en bloc, by voice 
vote

    Mr. Jay Patrick Murray, of Virginia, to be Alternate Representative 
for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of 
Ambassador and to be an Alternate Representative to the Sessions of the 
General Assembly of the United Nations--Approved by roll call vote: 
Ayes 11, Nays 10

September 19, 2017...............................................   165

Legislation

    H.R. 390, Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and 
Accountability Act of 2017--Approved, en bloc by voice vote, with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute

    S. 1848, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 
2017--Approved, with amendments, en bloc by voice vote

    S. Res. 168, A resolution supporting respect for human rights and 
encouraging inclusive governance in Ethiopia, with an amendment--
Approved, with substitute amendments, en bloc by voice vote

Nominations

    Hon. Barbara Lee, of California, to be Representative to the 
Seventy-second Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations--
Approved, en bloc by voice vote

    Hon. Christopher Smith, of New Jersey, to be Representative to the 
Seventy-second Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations--
Approved, en bloc by voice vote

    Hon. Steven Mnuchin, of California, Governor of the International 
Monetary Fund, Governor of the African Development Bank, Governor of 
the Inter-American Development Bank, and Governor of the International 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of five years and to 
be Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
United States Governor of the African Development Fund, and United 
States Governor of the Asian Development Bank--Approved, en bloc, by 
voice vote (Merkley recorded as ``No'')

    Hon. John R. Bass, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan--Approved, to en bloc by voice vote

    Mr. Doug Manchester, of California, to be Ambassador to the 
Commonwealth of The Bahamas--Approved by roll call vote: Ayes 11, Nays 
10

    Ms. Kathleen Troia McFarland, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Singapore--Approved by roll call vote: Ayes 12, Nays 9

    Mr. Stephen B. King, of Wisconsin, to be Ambassador to the Czech 
Republic--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

September 26, 2017...............................................   175

Nominations

    Hon. Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., of Utah, to be Ambassador to the Russian 
Federation--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. A. Wess Mitchell, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
State (European and Eurasian Affairs)--Approved, en bloc by voice vote

    Mr. Justin Hicks Siberell, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the 
Kingdom of Bahrain--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. J. Steven Dowd, of Florida, to be United States Director of the 
African Development Bank for a term of five years--Approved, en bloc, 
by voice vote

October 5, 2017..................................................   177

Legislation

    S. 832, African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Millennium 
Challenge Account Modernization Act, with a substitute amendment--
Approved by voice vote

    S. Res. 245, A resolution calling on the Government of Iran to 
release unjustly detained United States citizens and legal permanent 
resident aliens, and for other purposes, without amendments--Approved 
by voice vote

    S. Res. 211, A resolution condemning the violence and persecution 
in Chechnya, with amendments--Approved by voice vote

October 26, 2017.................................................   185

Legislation

    S. Res. 279, Reaffirming the commitment of the United States to 
promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Cambodia, with 
substitute amendments--Approved by voice vote

Nominations

    Hon. Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Haiti--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Peter Hoekstra, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom 
of the Netherlands--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Kenneth Ian Juster, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of India--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Hon. Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Djibouti--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Daniel J. Kritenbrink, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Kathleen M. Fitzpatrick, of the District of Columbia, to be 
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Richard Duke Buchan III, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the 
Kingdom of Spain, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
compensation as Ambassador to Andorra--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Jamie McCourt, of California, to be Ambassador to the French 
Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 
as Ambassador to the Principality of Monaco--Approved, en bloc, by 
voice vote

    Mr. Edward T. McMullen, Jr., of South Carolina, to be Ambassador to 
the Swiss Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without 
additional compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of 
Liechtenstein--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Peter Henry Barlerin, of Colorado, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Cameroon--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Michael James Dodman, of New York, to be Ambassador to the 
Islamic Republic of Mauritania--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Nina Maria Fite, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Angola--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Daniel L. Foote, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Zambia--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. David Dale Reimer, of Ohio, to be Ambassador to the Republic of 
Mauritius, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of Seychelles--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Eric P. Whitaker, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Republic 
of Niger--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. W. Robert Kohorst, of California, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Croatia--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Carla Sands, of California, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of 
Denmark--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Thomas L. Carter, of South Carolina, to be Representative of 
the United States of America on the Council of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Michael T. Evanoff, of Arkansas, to be an Assistant Secretary 
of State (Diplomatic Security)--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Manisha Singh, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
State (Economic and Business Affairs)--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Jennifer Gillian Newstead, of New York, to be Legal Advisor to 
the Department of State--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Richard Grenell, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal 
Republic of Germany--Approved by roll call vote: Ayes 11, Nays 10

    Hon. Samuel Dale Brownback, of Kansas, to be Ambassador-at-Large 
for International Religious Freedom--Approved by roll call vote: Ayes 
11, Nays 10

Foreign Service List

    Julie P. Akey, et al., dated October 2, 2017. (PN 1066)--Approved 
by voice vote

November 14, 2017................................................   193

Legislation

    S. 1928, Multilateral Aid Review Act of 2017, with amendments--
Approved by voice vote

Nominations

    Mr. Eric M. Ueland, of Oregon, to be Under Secretary of State 
(Management)--Held over until next business meeting

    Ms. Lisa A. Johnson, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the 
Republic of Namibia--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Sean P. Lawler, of Maryland, to be Chief of Protocol, and to 
have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service--Approved, en 
bloc, by voice vote

    Mr. Irwin Steven Goldstein, of New York, to be Under Secretary of 
State (Public Diplomacy)--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

    Ms. Rebecca Eliza Gonzales, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the 
Kingdom of Lesotho--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

Foreign Service Lists

    Lisa-Felicia Afi Akorli, et al., dated November 1, 2017 (PN 1199)--
Approved, en bloc, by voice vote; John R. Bass, II, et al., dated 
November 1, 2017 (PN 1200)--Approved, en bloc, by voice vote

December 5, 2017.................................................   199

Legislation

    S. 1118, North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2017, 
with amendments--Approved by voice vote

    S. 1901, LEED Act, Leverage to Enhance Effective Diplomacy Act of 
2017, with amendments--Approved by voice vote

    S. 447, Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act of 2017, with 
a substitute amendment--Approved by voice vote

    S. Res. 150, A resolution recognizing threats to freedom of the 
press and expression around the world and reaffirming freedom of the 
press as a priority in efforts of the United States Government to 
promote democracy and good governance--Approved by voice vote

    S. Res 139, 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, with 
amendments--Approved by voice vote

 
                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 6:00 p.m., in 
room S-216, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, 
Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.

             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 were going to consider S. Res. 6, objecting to UNSCR 
2334. I would like to thank Senators Rubio and Cardin for their 
work on this. Most of the members of this committee have 
cosponsored this, so I would like to thank them as well.
    I was hoping the resolution would make an impact this 
weekend in Paris, and I hope to continue to work with all of 
you to support follow up legislation addressing anti-Semitism 
at the United Nations. However, I now know that one of our 
members would like to hold this agenda item until the next 
business meeting. We will respect that request and consider the 
resolution tomorrow.
    So today we will now vote on the resolution of ratification 
for the accession of Montenegro to NATO. Since gaining 
independence and joining NATO's Partnership for Peace in 2006, 
Montenegro has worked to join NATO; in 2009, they received a 
Membership Action Plan and were formally invited in 2015.
    Just as our committee supported Montenegro's accession in 
the last Congress, we remain supportive now--and introduce this 
resolution in order to amend the Washington Treaty to welcome 
Montenegro into NATO.
    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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding today's business meeting on Montenegro's NATO Accession 
Treaty. We received compelling testimony from the outgoing 
administration on Montenegro's bid to join NATO. It was clear 
that this small country has made significant contributions to 
the Alliance's efforts around the world and made necessary 
internal reforms to address governance, rule of law, and 
corruption issues.
    This progress appears all the more remarkable for the fact 
that Montenegro has been subject to a wave of anti-NATO and 
anti-western propaganda emanating from Russia. There are also 
allegations that last year's coup plot in Montenegro has 
Russian ties. I want to strongly remind my colleagues in the 
Senate that rejecting Montenegro's bid to join NATO or slow 
walking this process will have real implications for how NATO 
is perceived.
    We must make it clear that Russia does not get a veto over 
the decisions of the NATO Alliance. We must send a strong 
message of resolve.
    This treaty passed our committee in December by a voice 
vote, and on the Senate floor it received unanimous support 
from the Democratic side. I urge all those present today to 
again join Senator Corker and me in support of this 
legislation. My hope is that when this treaty moves to the 
floor, Chairman Corker and Majority Leader McConnell can 
persuade their colleagues to support Montenegro's accession.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I would entertain a motion to approve the 
Montenegro treaty resolution by voice vote.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Montenegro 
treaty resolution by voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And with that the ayes have it and the treaty 
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 with that, without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 6:13 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:00 p.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I would like to call the Foreign Relations 
business meeting to order. I want to thank everybody for 
cooperating and having this occur again today.
    Obviously, we always want to deal with people's concerns 
and issues, and I want to one more time thank people on both 
sides of the aisle for the way the hearing went yesterday. I 
thought it was serious. I thought the questions were--it does 
not matter what I think, I realize. But I just thought the 
hearing went extremely well, and I want to thank everybody for 
cooperating in that.
    Today, we are going to consider S. Res. 6, objecting to the 
UNSCR 2334 resolution. I would like to thank Senators Rubio and 
Cardin for their work on this. Most of the members of this 
committee have cosponsored this, and I want to thank them as 
well.
    I know the goal is to have impact on what is happening this 
weekend in Paris. I certainly want to work with all of you all 
on any follow-up legislation we might want to do that is not 
being done for a specific issue, but maybe to address this 
issue in a much bigger way and maybe do so legislatively. We 
all realize this is more to send a signal to those who are 
dealing with the Paris meeting this weekend.
    So, with that, I would love to have any comments, hear any 
comments our outstanding ranking member has to say and anybody 
else, and we will move to it.

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

    Senator Cardin. Well, first, let me just concur on your 
observations about yesterday's hearing. I was proud of each 
member of the committee at the seriousness that we took our 
responsibilities and the questions that were asked. I look at 
what other committees are doing and I recognize that Senator 
Corker, within reason, tries to accommodate every member of our 
committee with the time that he or she needs in order to pursue 
the lines of questioning, that we had ample time to ask 
multiple rounds of questions, and the Chairman never showed any 
impatience.
    And I just thank you for that because it allowed our 
members to develop the concerns that they had and what 
information that they needed, and I thought our committee 
really carried out its responsibility in the way we should at a 
confirmation hearing. So on behalf of the Democrats, I want to 
thank our chairman for the way the hearing was conducted.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Are there any members that wish to speak to the issue?
    Senator Cardin. If I could just, one quick----
    The Chairman. Yes, okay. I am sorry.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. Because I want to really, 
first of all, thank Senator Rubio and the other members of the 
committee that have worked on this. What we have attempted to 
do here in this resolution is to express ourselves against the 
actions taken in the United Nations Security Council and to 
make it clear that we do not want to see anything further 
happen in Paris over the weekend. That is the essence of this 
resolution.
    We believe, and I think everyone here believes, that the 
only way there is going to be peace between the Palestinians 
and the Israelis, is that they directly negotiate the terms of 
the peace agreement. It will not be negotiated in the United 
Nations, and quite frankly, it will not be negotiated in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is going to be 
negotiated between the two parties.
    So I want to thank Senator Rubio because there were efforts 
made by many members to say, well, can we not really deal with 
this issue or that issue? And we did not deal with any of the 
substantive issues because that was the essence of the reason 
why this resolution was being adopted. We do not think the 
United Nations Security Council should interfere with it. We do 
not think the United States Congress should. So our objective 
was to voice ourselves against what happened in the United 
Nations.
    I want to make one other personal note, if I might? I am, 
as I think most people in this room know, a strong supporter of 
President Obama's foreign policy. I believe he has been a 
strong President in supporting U.S.-Israel relations, and I 
have said that on numerous occasions in front of different 
groups. He has been able to provide the type of financial 
assistance, particularly in the realm of security, defense. He 
has protected Israel in so many different forums, and he has 
represented Israel's interests among some very hostile 
countries.
    I think the United States administration made a mistake in 
not vetoing this resolution, and that is what this speaks to. 
We have a responsibility to speak out on that, but it does not 
diminish my admiration for our President or for our Secretary 
of State, who I think has been absolutely incredible in trying 
to seek peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this 
today.
    I wanted just to make a couple points. In my view, this is, 
as much as anything else, about the goal of advancing peace. It 
is my belief, and I think the majority of the members of this 
committee, that the only way there is ever going to be a 
resolution to this issue is if the Israelis and the 
Palestinians directly negotiate with one another and reach an 
agreement and that anything that they try to impose from the 
outside in is counterproductive, as we have already seen.
    We have seen the comments of the Prime Minister of Israel 
and his government and their reaction to this, and the United 
States plays a critical role in that regard. And what this 
intends to do is to state the position of what I believe is the 
vast majority of members of the United States Senate in the 
context of this gathering in Paris that is going to occur, I 
believe, beginning this Sunday and Monday and hopefully set the 
tone moving forward.
    I honestly believe that we are advancing the cause of peace 
by hopefully nudging this in a direction that would require the 
parties to negotiate face-to-face, one-on-one on the terms of 
any long-term solution to this vexing problem. And I hope that 
it is viewed in that regard because that is ultimately the goal 
here.
    I am convinced that the Israelis would love to have peace 
and would love to resolve this issue. So there is a lot of 
specific language in the Security Council resolution that is 
troubling to many of us that I think sets back the cause of 
peace, and that is what this is designed to do.
    And Senator Cardin is correct. There are a lot of other 
things we could have added to this. Up until early this 
morning, I had people suggesting this language or that 
language, perhaps things I agree with. But this was not 
designed to make a point for political purposes. It was 
designed to try to create a product that the overwhelming 
majority of Senators were comfortable with, even if it left out 
things that perhaps some of us would have liked to have seen in 
it. And so I hope we can get it done today.
    The Chairman. So we have some amendments, and there will be 
time for people to speak on those, too. I just want to make 
people aware. We have the Kaine amendment. We have the Udall 
amendment.
    But if there are other people that would wish to speak to 
this prior to that, please? Yes, sir.
    Senator Coons. Briefly, if I might, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member. First, thank you for a very full, thorough hearing 
process yesterday and the way in which you both conducted it. 
Thank you for embracing the fact that my colleague Senator 
Udall really wanted the opportunity to weigh in on this. Again, 
from a process perspective, that is important.
    I could not agree more with Senators Cardin and Rubio. We 
are at a very difficult moment in Middle East peace, and I do 
not think any step that encourages the Palestinians to seek 
U.N.-directed resolution of what should be resolved through 
direct negotiations is constructive.
    I am a cosponsor of this resolution. I mean no disrespect 
to Secretary Kerry, whose tireless work to try and advance 
peace I deeply respect. I was just uncomfortable with the 
timing and content of this action at the United Nations and 
think the initial resolution bared, stripped down, focused just 
on that issue is what we should adopt.
    The Chairman. And if you remember when Secretary Kerry came 
to lunch, I do not think they planned to advance anything 
anyway. I do not think this is actually countering anything 
that they are going to be attempting to do this weekend.
    Any other? Yes, sir. Senator Isakson.
    Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to address that point for a second. I thank 
Senator Cardin, Senator Rubio, and Senator Coons for working on 
this. But you know, the effect of the--relative to the 
abstention, the effect of the resolution undermined the 
consistency and continuity of the United States position on an 
issue at a time when we are changing administrations.
    And if you are anywhere else in the world and that vote 
took place within the context of us changing administrations, 
it sent some uncertainty in terms of where America really was 
by the fact that it was cast. So I know that it was only 
intentioned to have a follow-up surprise, but I think it is 
very important that we reestablish the fact it is true that we 
are united in the policy of the United States, and this is the 
way we get to the solution. We do not want to have any lack of 
confidence now going back to the U.N.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I will make one last comment then before we 
move to Senator Kaine's amendment.
    I hope this is okay. Senator Cardin and I were coming over 
here together. We happened to ride the elevator together. And I 
guess what is concerning us is you are beginning to see a 
fraying in the support for Israel, and you have got people that 
are trying to move things on the right, right, right. You have 
people on the left, left, left that are trying to move things.
    And I think one of the things that has caused Israel to be 
able to function in the way that it has--and look, every friend 
that we have sometimes does things that, you know, you wish did 
not happen. But the way they have been able to survive in the 
region has been because Congress has been so uniformly mostly 
behind them. And so we are starting to see some forces that 
would fray that.
    I know that Senator Rubio and Cardin tried to craft 
something that was unifying and, as was mentioned, leave out 
things that might cause people to be dissuaded from the 
resolution. But look, this is where we are, and I really 
appreciate the fact that if a member feels strongly about 
something, they can voice it. We can deal with it, and again, 
it just gives me even more respect for the committee process 
that we have.
    So, with that, the Kaine amendment is the first amendment. 
I do not know if you want to speak to it?
    Senator Kaine. Just briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This is, I believe, a friendly amendment. It is in the 
seventh paragraph of the ``resolved'' clause. In the 
``resolved'' clause, we resolve a number of----
    The Chairman. Actually, let me do one thing first.
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Can we motion it first, and then we will talk 
to it?
    Senator Kaine. Oh, yes. I move the amendment be----
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [Second.]
    The Chairman. Moved and seconded. Sorry. Go ahead.
    Senator Kaine. This would be discussion. The seventh 
``resolved'' talks--basically urges future administrations to 
take a position vetoing all United Nations Security Council 
resolutions that seek to do any of three things: one, insert 
the Council into the peace process; two, recognize unilateral 
Palestinian actions; or three, dictate terms and timeline for a 
solution.
    We should be vetoing resolutions that recognize unilateral 
actions. We should be vetoing resolutions that dictate terms 
and solutions. But the idea of telling all future 
administrations to veto all resolutions that insert the 
Security Council into the peace process I think is a bad idea 
because I could foresee a whole lot of positive Security 
Council resolutions.
    The whole idea of the two-state solution was a U.N. 
guarantee. There could be a negotiation between the parties 
that they would want U.N. help in providing security 
assistance. If there is an intifada and the U.N. Security 
Council wants to do a resolution saying this is--and, you know, 
puts the pre-peace process back. I just think we do not know 
what future involvement of the Security Council will be, and we 
could exercise at the time the right to veto.
    But I do not think we should tell the administration to 
veto every future involvement of the Security Council. It is 
something that they have been involved with in the interval 
since the 1940s. And so I would propose just to drop that one 
clause.
    The Chairman. We talked about this openly yesterday. I know 
that I have talked to the sponsors and others. I think we all 
support the amendment. That does not matter, of course. 
Everybody has their own view.
    But I think that it is an amendment that everyone is in 
agreement with. And if there is no objection, I would like to 
have a voice vote on it, if that is okay?
    Senator Cardin. No objection.
    The Chairman. Okay. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. It carries. And with that, so it is amended. 
The resolution is amended.
    And we will now move to the Udall amendment.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. I move the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman. And I would move that it be an en bloc amendment, be 
together.
    The Chairman. Both portions?
    Senator Udall. If that is acceptable.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [Second.]
    Senator Udall. Thank you.
    And let me just say to Senator Kaine, I support his 
amendment. And really, a lot of what I am trying to do in terms 
of moving this amendment is correct some things that I hope 
there is some agreement on.
    I also, at the beginning, just want to thank everybody. I 
realize it is an inconvenience to come back, and I very much 
appreciate the courtesies of the Chairman to come back and 
consider this. And it is something that I felt strongly about 
at least putting us on the record in an open session on this.
    I also want to say that I really appreciate you, Senator 
Cardin and Mr. Chairman, in your bipartisanship in the hearing 
that we had yesterday and making it a true deliberative 
process. I think you set the tone, and I think it was a very, 
very good hearing to kind of set the tone as we move forward.
    You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this idea of the strain in the 
support of Israel. I just want to say at the beginning in 
offering this amendment that I could not be a stronger 
supporter of Israel, and I am on the Appropriations Committee. 
I intend to support Israel's defense, and this amendment should 
be taken in that light.
    I am introducing this amendment as a friend of Israel, as I 
have said, and I strongly support funding. But I also believe 
it is important to speak truth to our friends, as Secretary 
Kerry and others have done on the subject of settlements. This 
resolution would send the wrong message globally about where 
we, as a body, stand on this subject, and I believe by doing 
so, we will do great harm to the cause of the peace and the 
two-state solution.
    To begin with, the assertion that the recent Security 
Council resolution on two states does not, and I am quoting now 
from the ``whereas'' clause, allow ``all final status issues 
toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct 
bilateral negotiations between the parties.'' That, I believe, 
is objectively and factually false.
    The U.N. resolution does not dictate or impose anything 
whatsoever. It is a nonbinding resolution passed under Chapter 
VI of the U.N. Charter and expressly reaffirms [inaudible] 
negotiations on the final status issues. This amendment 
attempts to correct some problems, as I see, that the 
resolution as introduced has.
    First, the assertion that the Obama administration's 
decision not to veto the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 
is inconsistent with longstanding U.S. policy. That is the 
quote from the resolution that is before us. It is just not 
accurate and should not be reflected in this resolution.
    The U.S. administration from both parties supported or 
abstained on more than 50 U.N. Security Council resolutions 
critical of Israel since 1967. So I think there is a factual 
issue here that is very important.
    Second, the resolution's assertion that the U.N. Security 
Council is one-sided is also not supported by the fact that the 
U.N. Security Council expressly condemned, and I want to quote 
here, it expressly condemned ``all acts of violence against 
civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of 
provocation, incitement and destruction.'' And called ``upon 
both parties to act on the basis of international law, 
including international humanitarian law, and their previous 
agreements and obligations to observe calm and restraint and to 
refrain from provocative actions, incitement, and inflammatory 
rhetoric.'' So I do not think the resolution itself was one-
sided, and I think that that statement there shows that.
    I am also very concerned that this resolution may be 
interpreted as a condemnation of President Obama and Secretary 
Kerry as they end their term. Expressing grave objection to the 
Security Council resolution, which was not one-sided and which 
reflected policies toward settlements by multiple 
administrations, is not the message we should be sending.
    And I think all of us know that have served with Secretary 
Kerry on this committee, he has been a great advocate of 
Israel. He stood up and he has expressed himself, but he feels 
very strongly about these issues, as we saw at his farewell 
lunch.
    That being said, I think expressing concern is something 
that Senators can agree on. Certainly, we do not have to all 
agree with the abstention or everything in the Security Council 
resolution.
    And finally, in order to assure we are not interpreted as 
condoning settlement expansion, I think an additional language 
reaffirming this policy is needed. And without it, I fear we 
will simply be seen as condoning the expansion of settlements. 
And so we put one line in that settles that--that deals with 
the subject issue.
    And as I just want to echo again this is offered in the in 
the vein of supporting Israel and believing by supporting 
Israel and being factually correct on things is the best way to 
have all the parties move towards a two-state solution, and 
they should be negotiating with each other as we move down that 
road. These bilateral negotiations are very important.
    The Chairman. Before turning to Senator Cardin, I, first of 
all, thank you for your sincerity, and the first amendment, to 
me, the reason I do not like it is I really do not think that 
the U.N. Security Council is a place for this type of 
agreement, for this type of issue to be worked on. I think it 
just pushes them further apart.
    The second piece does not differentiate on the settlements. 
I mean, there are settlements in the eastern bloc where Israel 
is going to expand. It is going to be per any agreements that 
have been looked at in the past. Those are places where 
settlements are going to exist.
    So for that reason, I oppose your amendments. But I want to 
thank you again for the sincerity with which you have come 
forth.
    With that, Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. And let me also just join with Senator 
Corker, to say that Senator Udall and every member of this 
committee, this committee has demonstrated, and each member of 
this committee has demonstrated, the understanding of the 
importance of the strategic partnership with Israel to the 
United States.
    And you have demonstrated through your work on this 
committee, on numerous actions that we have taken, the 
questions that you have asked during not only public sessions, 
but in private sessions; that it is the United States Congress; 
it is the Senate, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; it is 
the members of this committee that have been responsible for 
maintaining that strong commitment to our most important ally 
in the Middle East. So that is not at all in question here; we 
simply have different views on this amendment.
    I oppose the amendment for many reasons, but when, Senator 
Udall, you say it does not change U.S. policy, look at the 
world reaction to what happened in the United Nations Security 
Council. First of all, the immediate reaction was applause by 
the Security Council, which is something that is pretty 
offensive, by the way, because they do not do that when passing 
resolutions.
    This was looked at as a major shift of the U.S. position, 
and that is why we were very concerned by what happened. Now 
you then indicate you want to have the parties negotiate, but 
you really make it much more challenging. The Palestinians look 
at what is in the Security Council resolution as the first step 
to the Palestinians being able to use the United Nations to 
determine borders rather than the direct negotiation of 
borders. That is disastrous. That is disastrous.
    And the Palestinians will use the United Nations and its 
institutions to carry that out. We have already seen them try 
to do it in many different ways. This resolution gives them 
additional strength in order to do that.
    And the last point I would make is when you changed the 
language to say ``expresses concern'' with United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 2334--that language supports the 
abstention. That is why the United States abstained. They had 
concerns about it. If you disagree and believe that that 
resolution should have been vetoed, your amendment is 
inconsistent with that.
    And I repeat what I said originally. What we attempted to 
do here in a nonpersonal way is to stress our views, as I think 
this committee has the expertise to do, as to the consequences 
of what happened in the United Nations Security Council.
    And as well-intended as this amendment is, I would urge my 
colleagues to vote no.
    Senator Rubio. If I may?
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The United States has actually repeatedly vetoed 
resolutions that sought to dictate final status terms. In 
particular, if you look at what the Security Council resolution 
states, this quotes from it. It ``underlines that it will not 
recognize any changes to the 4th--January 4, 1967 lines, 
including with regards to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by 
the parties through negotiations.''
    What that implicitly accepts is the narrative that the 
Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall are occupied territories. 
And that is one of the reasons why this was viewed as a major 
change in the American position towards these sorts of things.
    And so, in the end, I have no doubt about your sincerity 
and your views about what you are offering, but the amendments 
you are offering go literally to the very heart of the purpose 
of this resolution to begin with. And if they were to be 
adopted, I think, render what we are trying to do here 
meaningless in terms of the point we are trying to drive.
    And so I would urge, you know, my colleagues to oppose both 
amendments.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank Senator Udall for offering this. I make no 
secret of my belief this was a mistake, that the United States 
position should be to hold Israel harmless in a forum that is 
fundamentally unfair. And yet I am going to support Senator 
Udall's amendment because of the language that it retains, the 
first line of this resolution still is objecting to the United 
States--United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334.
    It still retains the language discussed by Senator Kaine 
that encourages future presidential administrations to veto any 
actions that set final terms, which I think speaks to Senator 
Cardin's point. And I would agree that the language in Senator 
Udall's amendment on settlements probably could be more 
refined, but I think it generally restates what has been the 
U.S. policy under both Presidents. I think people will 
generally understand it as such.
    So I think this is an incredibly important resolution. I am 
going to support it. And again, it is in my mind this amendment 
makes it better, and I do not necessarily believe it has the 
gravity of amendments suggested by some of the sponsors. So I 
thank Senator Udall for offering it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I have deep respect for my 
colleague and his views, but I must say that I totally reject 
the resolution that was brought at the United Nations. Of 23 
paragraphs that the resolution speaks to, there is one that 
speaks to the Palestinian Authority, specifically about its 
security forces having to maintain effective efforts against 
violence and terrorism. The rest of it is about Israel.
    The rest of it is about Israel. I do not consider that 
balanced. I do not consider that balanced.
    Secondly, in 25 years between the House and Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, I have never seen the Security Council 
erupt in applause, erupt in applause over any action, including 
actions that should be far more consequential than this one. 
And so I have to say from my own view, and it is only my own 
view, that this is an institution that is largely anti-Semitic, 
from my view, by their actions. And I do not want to play into 
that.
    And I really think that if the intended goal was to try to 
get the parties to negotiate to a two-state solution, I think 
that the actual actions that took place with the United States 
moved them further apart. They emboldened those who are the 
hard-core right on settlements in Israel, and they emboldened 
the Palestinians to believe that, you know what, if I can get 
somewhere else, i.e., the United Nations and international 
institutions, what I want, why should I sit and negotiate?
    So I think it did contra. I think it did damage, from my 
perspective, as it relates to the efforts towards a two-state 
solution, which I still support.
    So for all of those reasons, I do not seek to amend. I do 
not question anybody's good intention, but I do not seek to 
amend the resolution as from where it is.
    And I think it is incredibly important on the verge of the 
Paris negotiations, and while we heard Secretary Kerry here in 
the luncheon say there will be no further actions, you know 
what? The world is an unsettled place, and I am not about to 
take a risk that there will be an imposition from other powers 
upon something that when we impose settlements, at the end of 
the day, they never work.
    Whether it was peace and justice in Northern Ireland or 
whether it is in other places, only when the parties come 
together and agree, ultimately can it succeed. And so I think 
having our voice heard and heard strongly at this time is 
incredibly important.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I do not disagree with what you 
said, Bob, and I share the concerns that have been expressed by 
everyone with respect to our abstention from the U.N. 
resolution. But the question that I have got is whether the 
language that Tom--the language of the resolution and the 
language that Tom is trying to take out of the resolution is 
really an effort to signal a different policy than we have had 
with respect to some of these issues, and is this an effort to 
go back at the Obama administration for the action that they 
took?
    Or is this really designed to be sort of a neutral or a 
statement by the Senate, or does it actually move the line on 
what the U.S. policy has been on some of these issues? Because 
I agree with Tom that the line about the Obama administration's 
decision to vote, that first line, ``whereas'' clause, does not 
accurately reflect what historically has happened.
    And so, you know, I am just trying to get at what the whole 
motivation is here.
    The Chairman. It would be my observation--maybe I am wrong. 
I thought we talked a little bit about this before the meeting. 
But I cannot imagine that President Obama is paying one bit of 
attention to this resolution nor finds it offensive in any way.
    Senator Shaheen. Yeah. No, and I am not--I am not so much 
concerned about the President as I am about a point that Tom 
was making that this is not factually accurate.
    Senator Cardin. Well, if I may respond? I think it is 
accurate to the point, as I mentioned earlier, that the action 
taken here was a deviation from the U.S. position on one-sided 
resolutions and using the Security Council as a wedge towards 
tilting the scales of direct negotiations. Not only was it a 
deviation from that, it was seen by the global community as a 
shift in U.S. policy.
    And it was viewed as a help to the Palestinians, and it has 
been--and I think Senator Rubio--or Senator Menendez is 
absolutely right. It has caused a reaction by all sides that 
make it even more complicated for direct party negotiations, 
which has always been used.
    Senator Shaheen. I am not arguing that, Ben.
    Senator Cardin. But--my position is this. We have had a 
clear policy for a long period of time against one-sided 
resolutions, and this was clearly, I believe, a one-sided 
resolution. But more importantly, it was perceived by the 
parties as tilted towards the Palestinians and it will be used 
in negotiations.
    The Chairman. If I could just add probably--and we are 
going to vote on this in a minute. People can express then. But 
I think the timing, too. I mean, if you add all of those 
things, it is a little bit of a shift to have a missile sent 
out, if you will, in the middle of a transition, when another 
group is coming in.
    So there were many things about this that I think sent a 
very different signal.
    Senator Shaheen. I am not arguing the action. I am 
questioning whether this resolution accurately reflects what 
American policy has been. I am not arguing we should have not--
we should have abstained.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. We are in a very complex environment, a 
transition from one administration to another, a setting where 
a lot of [inaudible] are being read by the Palestinians, the 
Israelis, our allies, our adversaries around the world. I do 
think it was a strikingly unbalanced resolution adopted by the 
Security Council.
    I am clear--I share Secretary Kerry's deep, understandable, 
justified frustration at settlement activity and the 
unwillingness to make some accommodations that would advance 
peace. But I just do not think--I think this carefully balanced 
resolution does need that reinserted here. I think 
demonstrating bipartisanship and moving us forward in a strong 
vote is ultimately more important. So I am going to vote 
against this resolution.
    And then to the resolution--but that does not mean I am not 
clear about the enormous challenges that changing circumstances 
on the ground have created. I just think anything that is 
encouraging the Palestinians to seek the U.N. as their answer 
is ultimately the most harmful thing we can be doing in the 
peace process. So I am going to support it as drafted.
    The Chairman. Any other statements? Yes, sir.
    Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. I share so much of what many have said 
here. Just a short while ago, Kerry was sitting in this room 
explaining his concern that the steady addition of new sites, 
new utilization of sites, infrastructure that was between 
Palestinians was making it----
    Voice. Can you speak up, please?
    Senator Merkley [continuing]. Was making it day-by-day or 
year-by-year more difficult for us to actually have anything 
that would ever embody a two-state solution. And that if we do 
not succeed in that, there is going to be a festering sore that 
will affect the security of Israel through the balance of our 
lifetimes, and that has reverberations for the security of many 
nations.
    So I feel that what Tom was attempting to do here is 
appropriate, that we attempt to have an accurate resolution and 
not have it interpreted as condoning a process that is slowly 
killing the two-state solution as an enduring resolution off 
which peace can be based. I will be supporting his amendments.
    I also feel that the bulk of this resolution is--I 
completely support, that the U.N. should not be--I feel even 
with Tom's changes, it still says that, but I will be 
supporting it regardless of the outcome of those amendments. 
But I think we have not wrestled as much as we need to with 
processes that are slowly degrading the chance for a permanent 
peaceful resolution of the conflict.
    The Chairman. Very good. Are you all ready to vote?
    Voice. Can I ask, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. I am sorry. Yes, sir.
    Voice [continuing]. For your indulgence?
    The one thing I have not heard in the course of this 
conversation, I had actually--I think it is really important to 
get the facts straight. Language matters in things like this. 
So I have not yet heard examples of United States policy, you 
know, actions, positions taken, votes taken, and Security 
Council abstentions that have occurred that are reflective of 
what just happened, you know? Can you cite other instances?
    Actually, Secretary of State Kerry did the other day in the 
course of our lunch. He indicated that both in Republican and 
Democrat administrations, there were instances, he sort of 
vaguely said, where the United States had abstained under 
similar circumstances. My assumption was that we had a number 
of longstanding members of this committee or those who are 
familiar with the issue and we just kind of understood what he 
was talking about.
    Can you cite examples where this has occurred? I mean, can 
we be a little more specific here? And maybe staff can help 
out?
    Senator Udall. I thank the Senator for the question, and I 
assumed most of us heard Secretary Kerry's farewell address 
where he cited specifically on the settlement policy in two 
different administrations where the United States had 
disagreed. I have had my staff now research just disagreement 
with Israel.
    Voice. Yes.
    Senator Udall. And we have--he has a document right here, 
50--50 times.
    Voice. Yes.
    Senator Udall. If you want to see it and look at it, that 
is fine. I do not know that we need to belabor that. I mean, 
the point here is, as you know, this resolution that we are 
voting on makes it sound like that we have never taken this 
position before. And I do not think that that is accurate. I 
think the fair thing to do is change it so that we reflect U.S. 
policy.
    And then the second thing, Senator, on this point of the 
resolution before the United Nations was about settlements. We 
basically do not deal with that issue.
    That is why that one sentence that Senator Murphy has said 
I may not totally reflect what the policy has been, but the 
U.S. policy over many administrations has been that the 
settlement policy and the expansion of settlements hurts the 
ability of the two-state solution. And that is what I am trying 
to reflect in this one amendment.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Would anybody object to 
trying to reach consensus on what you are attempting to do?
    Could we strike the first part of your first amendment, 
where it says ``Whereas the'' I mean, strike the first part of 
the resolution you are trying to amend. It says, ``Whereas, the 
Obama administration's decision not to veto the U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 2334 is inconsistent with longstanding U.S. 
policy.''
    Could we strike that out of the base text that Rubio and 
Cardin have offered, but leave in the part that says that it 
makes direct negotiations more, not less challenging? Would 
that accommodate your concerns?
    Senator Rubio. Well, it would be problematic for me.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Cardin. You would strike the ``objecting to'' 
language?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Chairman. No.
    Senator Cardin. Oh, I am sorry. Then what did you say?
    Senator Rubio. Can I elaborate why?
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Rubio. First of all, the term here that says 
``longstanding,'' my understanding is that there has not been a 
vote on the issue of settlements at the Security Council since 
1980. So that would be 36 years, which, by my definition, is 
pretty longstanding. It is almost as old as Cory Gardner and--
36 years. So that is a long time.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. And so that is why the word ``longstanding'' 
is there. It did not say the permanent policy or the forever 
policy of the United States, but it does say longstanding, 
number one.
    Number two, so I just think that is important, and I think 
it goes back to a point that Senator Cardin raised. And that is 
the reaction at the Security Council was that this was an 
unprecedented event. I mean, that is the reaction globally, the 
reaction of the Security Council. That is the way the Israelis 
interpreted it.
    I mean, there is global acceptance of the fact that what 
happened there was meaningful because it had not happened in a 
long time. It was not what people expect from the United 
States, and this paragraph recognizes that.
    And so I just think if we are debating this paragraph and 
whether it should be in or not, in many ways we are debating 
the heart of why this is relevant.
    The Chairman. It seems to me that we have got some 
differences here, and they are probably not going to be 
resolved. And I appreciate it, these resolutions typically are 
not taken particularly seriously. I am actually glad we are 
spending some time on Israeli-Palestinian policy here today, 
and it may bode well for some future things that we may do.
    Did anybody else want to speak to this before we voted?
    Senator Rubio. I just want to clarify, he is 40. He is not 
36.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Gardner. And I would clarify that is younger than 
Marco Rubio.
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. He feels 36.
    Senator Rubio. But he looks older.
    The Chairman. Oh----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner. I am still taller.
    The Chairman. We are going to move into some things that 
the campaign illuminated.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. So do you want a recorded vote?
    Senator Udall. Yes, please , and let me just thank 
everybody for the debate.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I think Senator Rubio--I 
do not know if you have a response to that. I was tripping over 
the issue of long term--longstanding, excuse me, as well. I 
think that Senator Shaheen's point, I found that resonated with 
me. But how do you respond to that 36-year measure?
    Senator Udall. Well, I think the best approach is to take 
that whole paragraph out.
    Voice. I was encouraged by that offer, but I did not know 
if you had a response to Senator Rubio's --
    Senator Udall. I would stick with my resolution.
    The Chairman. Okay. That is fine.
    So all in favor of the Udall amendments en bloc? I guess we 
need to record this. So, if the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes are 14; the yeas are 7.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Before we move to final passage, we are going to have Nikki 
Haley in on the 18th, and I appreciate the minority 
accommodating that. I hope that we will use it not just as a 
time to interrogate her and understand, you know, what her 
views are and what she is going to be doing, but as somewhat of 
a proxy on just this whole U.N. process itself.
    The thing that is offensive to me, you have 500,000 people 
dead in Syria. The U.N. Security Council cannot deal with it. 
We have got violations of the Iranian agreement, and the U.N. 
Security Council cannot deal with it. We have land being taken 
in South China Sea. The U.N. Security Council cannot deal with 
it. We have Russia taking pieces of Ukraine. The U.N. Security 
Council--and yet this, with applause, is what the U.N. Security 
Council deals with.
    I think we have got major issues with this institution, and 
I know there has always been a little bit of a push on the 
right more so than the left. I hope that what we can do during 
this hearing is begin to think about ways we can cause the U.N. 
Security Council to actually function on issues that matter 
greatly to humanity.
    I just do not see it happening now, and what has happened 
is the major players there--this was set up post World War II. 
The major players on the Security Council was supposed to be 
the keepers of peace, and they are the very people that are 
breaking down, you know, and creating the chaos in the world.
    So, with that----
    Senator Cardin. If I could just--I know we are going to do 
a roll call. I think that is a very important point. Mr. 
Chairman, you are exactly right on our need to explore what the 
United Nations will be like moving forward.
    In regards to Nikki Haley, she, if confirmed, will be our 
Ambassador. So I guess I am more interested as to how she will 
approach some of these issues and her qualifications.
    And I hope we do not get into a situation in which we are 
asking do you support the United Nations or oppose the United 
Nations because I want our Ambassador to be someone who 
believes in the United Nations, who wants to see the United 
States relevant to need.
    So let us hope we can have a positive discussion.
    I really do think we need to get a better understanding 
about the United Nations, whether we do it here or we go up to 
New York. I think this committee really needs to delve into 
some of the subjects that you have talked about.
    I am not sure, at least initially, these should be public 
hearings. I think there is a thirst for us to figure out how we 
can be relevant to how the United Nations responds to the 
challenges around the world because we have the same 
frustrations you have.
    The Chairman. If there are no other comments, then we will 
be voting on the resolution, as amended. Do you want to--do you 
all want a voice vote? Is that okay?
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The resolution passes out 
of committee as amended.
    I thank everybody----
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Kaine. I was hoping you would invoke longstanding 
practice of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to dock $500 
from one of our new members for insufficient apparel.
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. Tim, are you referring to the lack of a ruffled 
shirt?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Hey, listen. We are just glad that he wore a 
shirt.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:33 p.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, 
Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Kaine, Markey, 
and Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. The Foreign Relations business meeting will 
come to order.
    I know we have a lot of people that are interested here, 
and we thank you for coming. And if you would, we all consider 
it a huge privilege to play the roles that we play on behalf of 
our country and our States. And it is a privilege for all of us 
to participate in democracy in this way, and I hope everyone 
will keep their thoughts to themselves in the audience. But we 
thank you so much for being here today and being a part of 
this. We really do.
    The confirmation of Secretary of State is always one of 
this committee's most important responsibilities. At the core 
of the nomination process is the question of whether the 
nominee is qualified to undertake the duties for which he or 
she is nominated.
    I personally have no doubt that Rex Tillerson is well 
qualified. He has managed the world's eighth-largest company by 
revenue, with over 75,000 employees. Diplomacy has been a 
critical component of his positions in the past, and he has 
shown himself to be an exceptionally able and successful 
negotiator who has maintained deep relationships around the 
world.
    The other absolute standard we apply to each of these 
nominees who come before us is to ensure that they have no 
conflicts of interest related to their position. The 
nonpartisan Director of Office of Government Ethics recently 
stated that Mr. Tillerson is making a clean break from Exxon 
and is free of these conflicts.
    He has even gone so far to say that Tillerson's ethics 
agreement ``serves as a sterling model for what we would like 
to see with other nominees. He clearly recognizes that public 
service sometimes comes at a cost.''
    I believe inquiries into Mr. Tillerson's nomination have 
been fair and exhaustive. His hearing lasted over eight hours, 
and he has responded to over one thousand questions for the 
record. I am proud of the bipartisan process, which is keeping 
in the tradition of this committee, that we pursued regarding 
his nomination. And I think that while our opinions and votes 
today may differ, that the process has been very sound.
    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. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I have said during 
the hearings, and I repeat again, I want to thank you for the 
fairness in which you have allowed these confirmation hearings 
to go forward, and the ability of our members to be able to 
question Mr. Tillerson and to ask additional questions. And I 
thank you for your fairness, including the ability we had to 
schedule today's business session.
    A couple of preliminaries, if I might? First, I just want 
the record to note that there are severe weather conditions 
throughout the country, which are preventing some of our 
members from personally being here. For example, Senator Murphy 
had planned to be here by now. His flight was canceled. He is 
on a train heading towards Washington, as we speak, and will 
not be able to get here for a couple more hours.
    So I just really want to point out that we have members who 
wanted to be physically present, but because of the weather 
conditions, they are not going to be able to. And we are trying 
to work out accommodations in our committee where we can keep, 
I hope, the record open so that they can change their proxy 
vote to their vote in person later on, as long as they get here 
by this evening.
    A couple other points I want to bring out, and one is that 
there was just an honest disagreement between the Chairman and 
the ranking member as to whether a nominee for Secretary of 
State, and, I would also add, for U.N. Ambassador, should be 
required to make available to our committee 3-years of tax 
returns. They have all agreed to make them available. The 
question is whether we should ask them to see those tax 
returns.
    And I accept that there is a different view between the 
Chairman and the ranking member on this issue, and the 
precedent of our committee in the past is not to physically 
request those tax returns. And Mr. Chairman, I respect that and 
agree that this should be done in regular order, and I will 
just ask that, at a time when it is appropriate, we look at our 
rules as to whether we should be requiring, moving forward 
beyond Mr. Tillerson, beyond Governor Haley, in the future, if 
there would be a vacancy in Secretary of State or United 
Nations Ambassador, whether there should be an ability for us 
to ask for those tax returns moving forward.
    And I would ask that that opportunity be given to us to 
take it up as a committee as to whether that is the appropriate 
way or not.
    And then I must tell you that members of this committee 
have asked questions for the record of Mr. Tillerson, and I 
have looked at some of those responses. And they are not 
responsive to the questions that were asked. Now in some cases, 
it is challenging when you have a change in administration, and 
there is not a clarity as to what the President is looking for 
on foreign policy, so to get a nominee to give us a clear 
answer to those questions can be difficult. In other cases, the 
information requested was pretty straightforward.
    So we are not asking for any delay in today's vote, but I 
would ask--and there is no need to respond right now--that we 
will have a chance before this nominee's vote is on the floor 
of the United States Senate to try to get further clarification 
of those answers.
    And I am going to work with the Chairman because these 
requests, I think, are reasonable. I think the Chairman will 
agree with us. We are going to try to work that out so that we 
can get those answers before the vote on the floor, and in that 
case, I think we could shorten the time period on the floor for 
the consideration. Otherwise, it may take a little bit longer 
because we may want to go into some of those issues on the 
floor of the Senate.
    So having said all that, let me proceed with the merits of 
Mr. Tillerson and the nomination of Mr. Tillerson. Mr. 
Tillerson is certainly sincere in wanting to serve his country, 
and that I very much admire. He is certainly a very talented 
individual who has negotiating skills that are important for a 
person who would become Secretary of State, and I acknowledge 
that.
    He also indicated during the hearing a couple points I 
thought was useful: that the United States should be at the 
table during the climate debates, and that it would be 
important to comply with our current laws as it relates to 
Magnitsky.
    But what gives me the greatest concern and the reason that 
I cannot support him, his nomination for Secretary of State, is 
that his responses to the questions that we asked him directly 
about, such as his support for sanctions or how he would 
evaluate sanctions moving forward or how he would deal with 
contingencies on development assistance as it relates to human 
rights and good governance, were qualified so many times that 
he sounded like a business person rather than a person who 
wanted to be Secretary of State.
    And I did not see that commitment to be the advocate 
globally for human rights and good governance that I would like 
to see in the Secretary of State. So that was, I think, the 
greatest concern I have.
    And when I make it specific to Russia, the questions that 
were asked about how he would continue sanctions against Russia 
and support bipartisan legislation that would strengthen those 
sanctions, I did not get a comfort level that it would be based 
upon Russia's conduct against the United States, their attacks 
against us and the fact that they are still violating Ukraine's 
sovereignty. It seemed like he was wanting to consider other 
issues that may compromise U.S. global leadership in standing 
up to Russia. That concerned me.
    And when you put on top of that the clarity issues, and I 
think this was a very important point, and I contrast that to 
Governor Haley's response on questions such as Russia's 
participation in atrocities in Syria. When we asked whether 
that would be elevated to war crimes, Mr. Tillerson was not 
clear at all. Governor Haley was very clear about that.
    Or when I asked Mr. Tillerson about the conduct of the 
president of the Philippines in extrajudicial killings, which 
was pretty clear, and he would not characterize that as gross 
violations of human rights. That did cause me serious concern.
    So let me just amplify that a little bit further in another 
question that was asked. Mr. Tillerson responded to a question 
in regards to opening up business relationships with Cuba, and 
stated that that would be helping to finance a repressive 
regime. And he was pretty clear about his concerns about 
business with Cuba being supportive of a repressive regime, but 
he showed no sensitivity that ExxonMobil's business interests 
in Russia was helping to finance the Putin regime or other 
repressive regimes.
    And one last point on this issue concerning Russia, which 
had me concerned about Mr. Tillerson: is his potential 
conflicts. He indicated that he would recuse himself in dealing 
with anything concerning ExxonMobil for a 1-year period, and he 
would consider going beyond that if the ethics officer said 
that legally there was a problem.
    Well, quite frankly, I think there is a problem with Mr. 
Tillerson dealing with anything involving ExxonMobil for the 
entire time that he would be in public service as Secretary of 
State, and he was not clear at all about recusing himself 
beyond that 1-year period. So, Mr. Chairman, for all those 
reasons, I will not support his nomination.
    I want to mention one last point, if I might? And that is 
that the Secretary of State is our principal soft power leader 
in this country. On several of the questions we asked him about 
current world events, he was quick to point out that he would 
recommend the use of the military, of additional force, rather 
than leading with diplomacy.
    The one example was in the South China Sea, where he said 
we should be more, I guess, military. Whereas, in my view, the 
Secretary of State should be leading with more diplomacy. And I 
found it disturbing that that seemed to be not his first 
reaction, and we certainly would want him to do that as 
Secretary of State.
    But for all those reasons, I will be voting against Mr. 
Tillerson's confirmation.
    The Chairman. I wonder if we could do this. We have a 
number of members here that have other things to do. I am 
willing to stay and keep the record open for people to speak, 
and I am going to stay here so that people who are coming in 
late can vote in person and not by proxy, okay? I am more than 
glad to do that at least until 5:15 p.m., to make sure that 
people are just not voting by proxy.
    I wonder if there would be any objection to us voting and 
letting those who do not want to stay and make comments leave. 
Others will be coming in. We are going to keep the vote open. 
But those who wish to make comments could then stay. Others who 
do not wish to make comments could go ahead and leave.
    Is there any objection to that?
    Senator Cardin. I do not know if some of my members would 
like to make their comments before the vote is open, if members 
have that right to do that. I think Senator Menendez would. Is 
there any other member who wants to be heard before we start 
the vote?
    I would ask that Senator Menendez be----
    The Chairman. Okay. Let me just say one other thing.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. And Senator Markey.
    The Chairman. Okay. Are you sure we cannot have a rolling 
vote, where those who do not wish to necessarily hear the 
comments could go ahead and vote and leave? Is there any real 
objection on that?
    Senator Menendez. I regret that they do not want to hear 
the comments, Mr. Chairman. But I would like to have my reasons 
before I vote, not in the aftermath of a vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. I apologize to the other members who 
are here and ready to vote.
    Let me just, if I could, we are accommodating folks who are 
traveling, and we are glad to do so. If we could keep our 
comments brief, and then if you want to expand further after 
people have voted, that would be great.
    I would like to say that what we are doing as it relates to 
tax returns is exactly what we are doing--what we have done for 
10 years on this committee. Ten years. So we treated Secretary 
Kerry, Secretary Clinton exactly in the same fashion.
    I just know that, you know, we did the nuclear option. So 
now, all of a sudden, it just takes 51 votes for conformation. 
That was a big mistake, I think. But that is the way things are 
now, and so now we are looking at changing the rules of tax 
returns at some point. I hope that does not happen because, 
again, most of those are used for ``gotcha'' questions. They 
have nothing to do with service.
    I hope we can talk about that some, but please this nominee 
and the one we will deal with tomorrow, we dealt with exactly 
the same way we have dealt on this committee for ten years.
    And just because we were so overly helpful to the Obama 
administration in getting nominees out does not mean I want to 
be unhelpful or treat our nominees, these nominees who are 
coming in in a different fashion. So I would just like to get 
that straight.
    And what Mr. Tillerson said was he would be glad to provide 
tax information regarding the three years. But the kind of 
questions that have been asked, I will accommodate some 
additional questions being asked, but asking about cutting 
horses on his ranch is a ridiculous question.
    So I do not know what has happened all of a sudden in this 
committee, where we are asking silly, silly, silly, ridiculous, 
elementary questions that have nothing to do with somebody 
serving as Secretary of State. But I am willing to accommodate 
some of that.
    With that, Senator Menendez?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I must interrupt. Just for 
one moment, I must. In that we have accommodated at the first 
available times the hearings and the voting sessions for Mr. 
Tillerson. As I think the Chairman is aware, we could have 
demanded the 5 business days before a nominee could be 
considered, which means Mr. Tillerson could not be considered 
yet.
    So I just really want to--
    The Chairman. Yes, I got it.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. Acknowledge that. Secondly, I 
assure you that the questions that I am asking are not silly 
questions. But let me go beyond that. I do not think it is up 
to either the Chairman or the ranking member to take away a 
prerogative of any member of this committee----
    The Chairman. And nobody has. Nobody has.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. To ask the questions that they 
want to ask. There has been a history. You go back to the 
record of this committee, each member has a right to ask the 
questions they want to without us----
    The Chairman. And we are going to accommodate the answering 
of those questions to the extent we can, and we always have and 
had three rounds of questions here.
    With that, actually, is there any Republican that needs to 
speak? That is the order we would be going in.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just a quick comment, I think Senator Cardin's remarks were 
that we were looking to do this prospectively so that there is 
no issue of looking at it as it relates to these nominees and 
that being unfair. I do think that when you have very large 
holdings that can affect your judgment if you are in the 
position in futuro, that it is of importance to this committee 
and to the Senate to know that and to use it as an additional 
judgment.
    So I am totally in favor. As a matter of fact, the reason 
the rules actually preview and ask the question ``Are you 
willing to submit information?'' must be because that is a 
predicate to when there is a necessity to call upon for the 
information. So I hope we can do that prospectively. So this 
way, it not a question of--it is not seen as a partisan view.
    But let me go to Mr. Tillerson's--and I will be concise, 
but I do want to say a few things. First of all, after 
considering his nomination to be Secretary of State, I will be 
casting my vote against him today.
    For the 11 years that I have served on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, I have taken the role of advice and 
consent of State Department nominees seriously. And while 
considering hundreds of nominations for both Democratic and 
Republican administrations, even where I disagreed with the 
nominee's views, especially when they were just espousing the 
views of an administration, I have often supported them if the 
other qualifications of the position I considered important 
were met.
    I respect Mr. Tillerson's experience and willingness to 
serve his country. But after our private meeting and lengthy 
public confirmation process, I remain deeply troubled by a 
number of Mr. Tillerson's responses and beliefs. I am not 
convinced that Mr. Tillerson shares a world view that the 
United States foreign policy must be rooted in the values that 
strengthen us as a nation--championing democracy, upholding the 
rule of law, protecting human rights.
    And as I said during his hearing, business deal making is 
not diplomacy. And I remain doubtful that Mr. Tillerson would 
fully embrace a wide-ranging policy to strengthen our alliances 
and forthrightly confront our adversaries. It is not the type 
of moral clarity I would have liked to have heard him espouse.
    Additionally, I believe Mr. Tillerson was not entirely 
forthcoming in his response to my questions about both his 
personal and ExxonMobil's lobbying against sanctions, one of 
the most powerful tools in our arsenal of peaceful diplomatic 
levers and many of which I have personally written. If I am 
charged with a responsibility to advise and consent, if I am to 
vote affirmatively for a nominee, I need honest and transparent 
answers. I simply do not feel I got them from Mr. Tillerson on 
these questions.
    Finally, as I said at the hearing, at a time when Russia's 
continuing aggression around the world and interference in our 
election must be at the top of America's diplomatic agenda and 
our chief concern to our Secretary of State, it is incredibly 
troublesome that Mr. Tillerson and President Trump had not even 
discussed the specifics of their Russia policy. I do not know 
how you choose to accept the position of Secretary of State 
when you do not have a global discussion. And if you did have a 
discussion, you do not even talk about Russia between what is 
happening in Ukraine, Aleppo, and in our own elections.
    So I believe Mr. Tillerson proved he lacks the sufficient 
knowledge or regard for the norms and necessities that so much 
of our modern diplomatic and security efforts depend upon, and 
I believe the American people deserve a chief diplomat to fully 
advocate for the interests and national security of all. I just 
did not get that from the process of this confirmation, and so, 
therefore, I will be voting no.
    Senator Cardin. I think Markey wanted to be heard.
    The Chairman. I think Senator Markey was the only other 
one.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I just want to follow up on what Senator Cardin made 
reference to. In my repeated questioning of Mr. Tillerson with 
regard to his holdings on ExxonMobil, not personally, but the 
holdings of ExxonMobil inside of the country of Russia, he 
refused to commit to recusing himself from all matters related 
to ExxonMobil for the duration of the time that he would be 
Secretary of State.
    At the time at which Mr. Tillerson took over as CEO of 
ExxonMobil, they had very small holdings in Russia. Today, 
ExxonMobil holds an area that is the size of Wyoming for 
drilling purposes inside of Russia. That is, for my purpose, a 
fundamental conflict of interest.
    I would feel a lot more comfortable if Mr. Tillerson would 
agree to recuse himself from any matter related to ExxonMobil 
for the duration of his time as Secretary of State. He has 
refused to do so.
    During his time as CEO of ExxonMobil, the company opposed 
the sanctions on Russia that would hamper the business activity 
of ExxonMobil inside of that country. So I just think it is 
fundamental that Mr. Tillerson just recuse himself from any of 
those issues because the American people have a right to know 
that it is their interests and not ExxonMobil's interests that 
are going to be advanced by these huge decisions which are 
going to be made over the next several years at the State 
Department and in the White House.
    And for that reason, I cast--I will cast a no vote on his 
nomination.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And I am more than glad to stay 
here and keep the meeting open for other comments as a courtesy 
to members who have other business.
    The motion before us, I will ask a roll call vote for Rex 
Tillerson to be Secretary of State. The vote will be to report 
the nomination favorably. If the clerk will call the roll?
    Senator Cardin. And Mr. Chairman, so understand, I will be 
casting some proxy votes, but the members, when they come --
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Senator Cardin. --they will be able to replace the proxy.
    The Chairman. That is exactly right. And you know, we will 
keep it open, let us say, instead of 5:15 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
    Senator Cardin. Well, if possible, I would ask, 
particularly in Senator Murphy's case, that he be--if he is 
here later tonight, that he be able to replace his vote to be 
in person, if that would be possible?
    The Chairman. We will attempt to figure out a way to 
accommodate that short of me sitting here until 8:00 p.m. by 
myself.
    Senator Cardin. Okay.
    The Chairman. Thank you all very much for cooperating in 
this manner.
    If the clerk will call the roll?
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. He will be here shortly.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. He will be back shortly.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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 Cardin. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Cardin. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. So now we are going to hold it open.
    Senator Cardin. And I would just ask consent that the roll 
call be held open.
    The Chairman. And we will, as members do come in and want 
to vote, we will stop the speaking to allow them to do so.
    Thank you. It is a little bit of a departure than--the 
vote-- count than things have been in the past on nominations 
like this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to cast 
votes in the manner they wish.
    Does anyone wish now to speak? Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me begin by saying that I believe that all Presidents, 
especially a new one, are entitled to a significant amount of 
deference on their Cabinet appointments. I think this is a 
tradition that is evidenced by the fact that I believe in the 
240-year history of the republic, we have only had 9 Cabinet 
nominees that have been voted down by the full Senate.
    But I also want to add that given how much uncertainty 
currently exists regarding the future direction of our Nation's 
foreign policy, this nomination deserved a higher level of 
scrutiny than tradition otherwise would indicate, and that is 
in the spirit of which I entered into these deliberations.
    As you have already said that Mr. Tillerson testified for 
over 8 hours, I spent about 4 or 5 weeks prior to this hearing 
researching and preparing for it. I have had the opportunity to 
have two extensive conversations with him. He has also 
responded to over 100 written questions, and for the record, 
none were about horses.
    The Chairman. Thank you for that.
    Senator Rubio. But, and a couple things I would say. The 
first is on the fundamental question of whether he is qualified 
to be Secretary of State, I believe that he is. He has a proven 
record of managing a large and complex organization, and he has 
extensive experience, international commerce.
    The one I struggled with was I strongly believe that our 
foreign policy is at its best and at its most effective when it 
is grounded in the moral principles and values at the core of 
our Nation's birth, the defense of the God-given rights of all 
people to life and to liberty and to pursue happiness. And so, 
for me, this was not simply a focus on Russia, which gets all 
the attention, although it is certainly a factor in it.
    My fundamental concern that I grappled with is that in the 
face of these calls that we have to move our foreign policy 
into the direction of what I believe is a sort of hyperrealism, 
my concern was that Mr. Tillerson would be an advocate for and 
would pursue a foreign policy of deal making at the expense of 
traditional alliances and at the expense of the defense of 
human rights and of democracy.
    I want to say for the record that in my interactions with 
him and with the new administration, they exhibited a high 
level of professionalism and responsiveness, and I think that 
is important to point out. And that I was pleased on a number 
of fronts, both with his answers and some with his 
clarifications.
    There are other fronts, however, other questions where I 
remain troubled, and I found it necessary to balance the 
answers that I was troubled by with at least four separate 
factors. The first, of course, is his track record of 
leadership that I have outlined. The second was things like his 
support of NATO, his recognition that Russia's claims on Crimea 
are illegitimate, his commitment to the Asia-Pacific defense 
commitments that we have, his answers on Cuba--a particular 
concern to some of us--and his support of defensive armaments 
for Ukraine.
    I also balance it with a belief, as I have already stated, 
that the President deserves the chance to succeed and, 
therefore, should be given significant deference in choosing 
Cabinet officials. And one additional point, which I think 
really came to light over the last 72 hours or week for me, is 
the fact that given the extraordinary amount of uncertainty and 
anxiety that exists both here at home and abroad about the 
direction of our Nation's foreign policy, I concluded that it 
would not be good for our country to unnecessarily delay or 
create unwarranted political controversy over this particular 
nomination.
    And I want to--and I said this to you earlier, Mr. 
Chairman, and you were, I think, in agreement, that as this 
committee moves forward with other appointments to critical 
posts in the Department of State, they will not be entitled nor 
receive from me the same level of deference that I have applied 
in this particular case.
    And so that is why on this nomination I have voted to today 
to confirm Mr. Tillerson and will do again in the full Senate. 
But as I informed him today in our conversation, I stand ready 
to help him succeed. I hope he does become the best Secretary 
of State our Nation has ever had, but I also intend to hold him 
and, more broadly, the Department of State accountable on the 
issues that I have stated here today and that I remain 
concerned about.
    So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank you, and I appreciated the call 
this morning and the thoughtfulness that went into making the 
decision. And I heard loud and clear that for other positions 
where you feel there is maybe a lack of clarity on these 
issues, you might not be quite as forgiving, if you will.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. I have a statement that I would like to 
submit for the record. But I also have a few comments that I 
would like to make.
    I think one of the things--I appreciate the concern you are 
raising about the polarization on the committee about this 
nominee.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Shaheen. And for me, one of the things that made 
that so hard was the fact that Rex Tillerson, unlike previous 
Secretaries of State in my memory--whether it is Hillary 
Clinton or John Kerry or Jim Baker, Madeleine Albright, Colin 
Powell, Condoleezza Rice--they all have a record in the public 
domain of positions they have taken and actions they have made 
on behalf of foreign policy issues that I could go to and say 
this is how I think they might react in a given situation.
    We did not have that with Mr. Tillerson, and for me, that 
was one of the difficult things in trying to evaluate the kind 
of leader that I thought he would be. And now I have to say 
after my meeting with him, I was inclined to view his 
nomination favorably. But I was very troubled by many of his 
responses in the hearing.
    I was reassured by what he had to say about NATO and 
international institutions, but very troubled, as Senator Rubio 
just commented, about his responses on human rights abuses and 
on his unwillingness to acknowledge that it is important for us 
to sanction Russia. And I know the view of this committee is 
that we need to take strong action against Russia when they 
violate international norms, and so I hope that he and the 
administration hear that loud and clear.
    I appreciated his support for women's economic empowerment 
and hope that as an engineer, he will look at the data when it 
comes to providing support for women's programs and 
particularly for things like family planning, which we know has 
a very significant impact in improving the lives of women and 
families and communities.
    I was concerned, as Senator Markey said, about his lack of 
forthrightness, as I saw it, on Exxon's dealings around 
lobbying and sanctions and also his unwillingness to commit 
clearly on the importance of acting to address climate change. 
So there were some other issues that my remarks, my written 
remarks address. But in the end, I just had too many concerns 
and questions about the kind of leadership he would provide at 
the State Department to feel comfortable with voting for him.
    Now, that said, I hope he is successful because it is in 
all of our interests that our diplomatic efforts, our foreign 
policy is successful, and that this country is successful. So I 
hope to work closely with him and with the State Department, as 
we have since I have been on this committee, and I look forward 
to doing that and hope that he will prove me wrong in some of 
my concerns.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]

               Senator Shaheen's Statement for the Record

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, I appreciate Mr. Tillerson's 
willingness to serve our country. He does not need this job, and his 
interest in working to advance the national security of the American 
people is admirable.
    I welcome the strong assurances Mr. Tillerson gave me about his 
commitment to the Transatlantic alliance and particularly NATO. I 
intend to hold the Trump administration to those commitments.
    I also appreciate Mr. Tillerson's sincere support for programs to 
strengthen women's economic empowerment and political participation and 
to combat gender-based violence. If confirmed, I look forward to 
working with him and others on this committee to advance a broad agenda 
that benefits women and girls worldwide.
    However, I was disappointed by Mr. Tillerson's equivocation on the 
importance of reproductive health and family planning to this agenda. 
Mr. Tillerson describes himself as an engineer who seeks the facts and 
follows where they lead; I hope he will let himself be convinced by the 
forceful, data-driven arguments for this assistance.
    I also remain troubled by Mr. Tillerson's aversion to imposing 
additional sanctions on Russia and his evasions on questions about 
clear abuses of fundamental human rights. I know there is broad 
bipartisan backing on this committee for a firmer approach to Russia 
and for a foreign policy that stands up for America's values. I hope 
that Mr. Tillerson and the new administration have received that 
message loud and clear.
    Finally, I wish Mr. Tillerson had clearly committed to supporting 
the Paris Climate Agreement, which I believe is an essential step by 
the nations of the world to address the global threat of climate 
change.
    In the end, I simply have too many concerns and outstanding 
questions about Mr. Tillerson's positions, and particularly how they 
relate to President Trump's, to support him now. I anticipate that he 
will be confirmed, and in that case I sincerely hope these concerns 
prove misplaced.


    The Chairman. Well, thank you. And I know you all had a 
good meeting and had talked with you a little bit about that 
and him.
    Mr. Tillerson is an engineer, and I think he probably does 
not know the person he is getting ready to work for very well, 
and matter of fact, I would guess they probably spent under a 
couple of hours together. And sometimes people are a little--a 
little reticent to get out over their skis, if you will, when 
they do not really know the person that they are getting ready 
to work for.
    But I know you had a very good private meeting, as did I, 
and I think most people on the committee. With that, do you 
want to record your vote?
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
a yes.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much for coming 
back.
    Anyone else over here would like to make any comments?
    Over here--Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to echo some of the thoughts my colleagues 
have expressed, that there were a series of positions that came 
up in the hearing that bothered me a great deal. Certainly, 
Enron's background in lobbying against the sanctions on Russia 
was one of them.
    Senator Shaheen. Exxon.
    Senator Merkley. But another----
    Senator Shaheen. Exxon.
    Senator Merkley [continuing]. I am sorry. Exxon, not Enron. 
Thank you.
    Also very concerned about the subsidiary that Exxon set up 
to bypass our sanctions on Iran. We need a Secretary of State 
who is clear about the role of U.S. foreign policy. And when I 
asked him how he would respond if other companies did that when 
he was leading as Secretary of State, he did not give a clear 
answer that he would work to have those companies abide and 
support the causes that American policymakers were pursuing 
with those sanctions.
    I am also concerned about the statements and how he 
responded to the questions about the extrajudicial killings in 
the Philippines, his company's payments to the personal family 
of president or dictator for life in Equatorial Guinea, and his 
response to Russia's actions in Syria and the bombing of 
Aleppo. And all of these things added up, I thought, to 
representing answers that you might expect from someone wearing 
their company hat, but not someone setting forth a moral 
compass for American leadership in the world.
    And that is the foundation on which I opposed him.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And if I could, I am not taking anyone to raise here, but I 
think the question about the sanctions--what he tried to 
clarify is he did not lobby against sanctions. He lobbied to 
try to make the equivalency between what we were doing here in 
the United States and what was happening in Europe to be more 
synchronized because the European companies had advantages 
based on the way the sanctions were put in place because they 
were grandfathered in as far as their activities. Whereas, that 
was not the case with the U.S. sanctions.
    So that was a clarification that I think he tried to make 
over and over in the committee.
    Anyone else wishing to speak?
    Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This was not a decision I made lightly. I have come to 
respect Mr. Tillerson's significant experience and broad role 
in business leadership over a lengthy public hearing and two 
very constructive private meetings, and I concluded he was a 
thoughtful and seasoned professional whose impressive business 
experience would actually serve him well in this role.
    I was encouraged by a number of his public stances, as some 
of my colleagues have said. His support for the NATO alliance, 
his respect for our leadership in multilateral initiatives, and 
in particular, in my case, his support for development 
programs, especially in Africa. But as I remarked both publicly 
and to him, the transition from being CEO of Exxon to Secretary 
of State, given he has no previous public record, is a 
significant leap and one where I have heard overwhelming input 
from my constituents about their view of his potentially 
troubling ties to Vladimir Putin and to Russia, given how 
pressing that issue is for us in our foreign policy right now.
    His views do differ from mine in a few significant ways. I 
do view climate change as a pressing national security threat, 
and I do think that some of our core values in human rights, 
free press, and promotion of democracy need to be advanced at 
the same time that we work for our security and our economic 
interests, that our values and our interests are best when 
advanced together.
    And I came very close to voting for Mr. Tillerson because 
of the constructive role I believe he could play. But I, 
frankly, in listening to the inaugural address of President 
Trump, concluded that American leadership on the world stage is 
not as simple as ``America first.'' And that I was even more 
concerned about a number of alarming things that the President 
said as a candidate on a whole range of issues, from human 
rights to NATO, to climate change, to Russia.
    And it is my deep hope that Mr. Tillerson, as Secretary, 
will challenge President Trump to rethink his isolationist and 
dark view of the world and to instead pursue a foreign policy 
that upholds our values and advances our interests.
    And if he is successful in that undertaking, I look forward 
to working closely with him and to recognizing the significant 
transition he has made and congratulating and thanking him on 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Again, I appreciated those 
comments. I know we had a nice conversation about this on 
Friday.
    I thought we were looking for in a Secretary of State is 
someone who was going to be up under the hood advising the 
President in a way that we thought would be good for our 
country, not to measure them against comments at an inaugural 
address or comments during a campaign. And I do think it is 
unfortunate that what has happened here is this has really in 
some ways turned out to be a proxy on people's feeling about 
our President, not necessarily a proxy or a vote on the person 
who is actually coming in as Secretary of State.
    And to me, Mr. Tillerson is an adult who has been around, 
and while he certainly does not know some of the political 
things that we know and has not been sitting through hearings 
for ten years, I do think he is a person that can be a very 
good anchor on the things that we care about. And that was what 
I measured him by, not by comments made during a campaign, not 
by comments made at an inaugural address.
    I do not think any of us could possibly hold nominees 
responsible for what someone else says if we happen to disagree 
with that. So I looked at it in a different way, as I have said 
during the opening comments. But it is very evident to me that 
in some cases here on the committee, it really turned out to be 
a proxy on the election itself, and it is disappointing. But 
that is what has happened.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond just very 
briefly on that?
    I do not think that is the case at all. I think what has 
been said is that Mr. Trump is our President. We want him to 
succeed. He cannot possibly manage every part of government, 
and his Cabinet appointments are critically important to this 
country. They have a great deal of discretion in the way they 
operate their agencies.
    The advice and consent role of the Congress, of the Senate, 
is critically important to make sure that these individuals are 
qualified for the positions they are taking, but also give us 
and the American people an opportunity, quite frankly, to 
understand the passion and commitment of these individuals to 
the roles that they are taking. We have seen over and over 
again with the nominations that Mr. Trump has made that the 
nominees have taken positions that are different than the 
positions that candidate Trump took.
    We have seen that with General Mattis, now the Secretary of 
Defense, when he talked about the NATO alliance. He came out 
very strongly in support of the NATO alliance, quite 
differently than President Trump did as candidate Trump. I 
think General Mattis was being just straightforward as to his 
beliefs, and that is one of the reasons why he received almost 
unanimous support by the United States Senate to be confirmed 
as Secretary of Defense.
    We saw in Mr. Tillerson's case, and I really want to 
underscore this, I think he is a good person. I think he is 
well qualified from the point of view of his business 
experience and his negotiating skills. But what I think 
troubled many of us is that when you look at the fundamental 
responsibility of the Secretary of State, to promote American 
values, and you contrast that to some of the other nominees and 
the comments that they were prepared to make about their 
passion. I already mentioned the point in regards to war 
crimes, which is something that is pretty sensitive to many of 
us here, particularly when we have seen what has happened in 
Aleppo, thanks to Russian support.
    Or we see what is happening in the Philippines with 
extrajudicial killings. Or we saw the response to the question 
on a national registry, when we asked him how he felt about 
Muslim Americans being registered, and he gave a more generic 
response. He did not just say that it would be wrong to have 
any type of registry in this country for any group of ethnic or 
religion Americans. It is important to the values of our 
country.
    He did not express that. Or, when the question was asked 
about the LGBT community, and he could not respond on that 
issue. He said, ``I am against any form of discrimination.'' 
Okay. But you need to have a view that when you are going to be 
Secretary of State, the world is looking upon you for 
leadership on these issues.
    So it is not so much that we do not want to get in front of 
the heads of our skis. That was not the issue because we 
understand that Mr. Trump will be and is the leader on all 
these issues. We understand that. But we wanted to know that 
the Secretary of State, our future Secretary of State, felt 
passionate on these issues.
    And I want to agree with Senator Shaheen. It is very likely 
that Mr. Tillerson will be confirmed to be Secretary of State. 
With the vote in this committee, I think most of us can do our 
counting, and we expect that he will be confirmed. And I can 
assure you, Mr. Chairman, this committee will play an important 
role and every member of this committee will play an important 
role. And we want him to succeed as Secretary of State. We want 
him to promote American values.
    I was listening very carefully to Senator Rubio's comments, 
and I share so much of his passion on the human rights issues. 
So it is going to be important that we all work together to 
make this country continue to be the leader globally on these 
issues, and we will do everything we can to make sure that we 
have a successful administration and a successful Secretary of 
State on these issues. And we will work with him.
    But I think it is our responsibility to point out not only 
to our constituents, but to the American people that there was 
disappointment in the manner in which Mr. Tillerson responded 
to these questions. Although they may have been consistent with 
President Trump, that was not our issue. It was not our issue 
as to whether we are trying to be a proxy for President Trump.
    It is not at all that. It is not at all. I intend to vote 
for several of President Trump's nominees for confirmation. I 
am going to be voting against other of his nominees. I have 
already announced my opposition to others.
    So it is that independent judgment I am making about the 
individual who is going to head that department, be in the room 
with the President, as to whether I think that person will 
speak out for the values of this country in a way that will be 
effective in making America move forward in the right 
direction.
    The Chairman. Very good. This is me that is listening, you 
know?
    So what--what I think I will do is I will keep the 
committee open until about 5:25 p.m. I think Portman will be in 
at that time. We will recess. And then so that Senator Murphy 
can record his vote.
    Senator Cardin. I think Senator Booker and Senator Kaine.
    The Chairman. Okay. So what we will do is reconvene at 
maybe 7:00 p.m. for 5 minutes, bang it in to let them vote in 
person during that time.
    With that, without objection, we are in recess. Excuse me. 
We are not in recess. I will wait for Portman for 5 minutes, 
and then we will be in recess until 7:00 p.m.
    Audience Member. Are we allowed to speak during this time? 
I was asking Senator Corker, can we talk during these 5 
minutes?
    The Chairman. You are welcome to talk to each other. It is 
always good to see you.
    Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Portman, sir, it is good to see you. We 
have had a rigorous discussion. How would you like to vote on 
Mr. Tillerson?
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
patience. I apologize. Because of weather, my flight was 
delayed.
    But as you know, I believe Presidents ought to be given 
deference in their team and given the benefit of the doubt. And 
in my discussions with Mr. Tillerson and in our public hearing, 
as you know, I asked him a number of questions, including 
questions about NATO and Article 5 and also about Ukraine, and 
I was impressed with his comment that he would support 
providing defensive lethal weapons to the people of Ukraine so 
they can defend themselves, which is a change in policy, as you 
know.
    I was also impressed with what he said about NATO and his 
commitment to not just supporting NATO, but not threatening to 
revoke U.S. support for Article 5 based on funding 
considerations. He said it was unconditional.
    And he also, in response to my questions about Israel and 
our relationship there, talked about the need for us to push 
back against the kinds of boycotts and divestment and sanctions 
legislation that Senator Cardin and I have fought against in 
our legislative efforts.
    And with all those taken into account, I have decided to 
vote yes on this nomination. I do believe that Mr. Tillerson's 
extensive business relationships around the world can be a 
positive thing for our country.
    Again, my concern going into this was some of the issues 
that I raised a moment ago to see, you know, where he stood. 
Because I think those relationships and that ability to 
influence our national security can be very helpful, or those 
relationships could be used in a way that would not promote our 
national security.
    And based on those answers to the questions, I am pleased 
to vote aye today.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much, and thanks for making an 
extra effort to be here today. We appreciate it.
    Senator Portman. Thank you again for your indulgence and 
your patience.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    The illustrious Senator Kaine has arrived and would like to 
record his vote, and you are welcome to comment at this time.
    Thank you.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you for holding the vote open. And I 
put out a statement last week. I am going to vote no and just 
rely on that statement.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for 
being here.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Senator Kaine will change his vote from 
proxy no to no, just.
    And Mr. Chairman, as you know, Senator Booker and Senator 
Murphy are both delayed because of weather problems, not only 
on the flight, but I have been told that the train has also 
been delayed. They have asked that we do not delay the 
proceedings further. If they were here personally, they would 
have voted no in person, but I think we can close out the vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And thank all of you for your 
cooperation, and I look forward to processing this on the 
floor. And I guess we have a mark-up tomorrow.
    Senator Cardin. Do you want to announce the vote?
    The Chairman. We have a meeting, business meeting tomorrow 
on Nikki Haley, but would the clerk report?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman. Yeas are 11; noes are 10. Recommendation 
passes. He will move to the floor, and I thank everybody for 
their cooperation.
    Senator Cardin. We have a vote tomorrow--or we have a 
business meeting tomorrow at noon, I believe it is. One of our 
members will be ranking on the Small Business Committee. So she 
will get to our committee at some point, I just want to ask 
some consideration so that she may vote.
    The Chairman. We will do the same thing.
    Senator Cardin. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay. We are adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                   Washingt. n, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:02 p.m., in 
room SD-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Cardin, 
Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and 
Booker.

             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. Today we will consider 
the nomination of Nikki Haley to be the U.S. representative to 
the United Nations and to be representative to the General 
Assembly of the U.N.
    Governor Haley is a fierce advocate, as we all saw, for 
American interests. All of us who have met her certainly have 
seen that. I believe she knows that the United Nations needs 
reform and change. We have a right to demand value for our 
money. I think our nominee has said she will demand that.
    Experience shows that when we have strong U.S. leadership 
at the U.N., we can get results, and South Carolina's governor, 
Nikki Haley, certainly is a proven leader. I believe she has 
the instincts--many of us actually commented on her instincts--
that will help her achieve reform. Having run a state 
government, she has dealt with tough management and budgetary 
issues. I believe the experience will serve her well, and I 
strongly support her nomination.
    And I know she has spent a great deal of time trying to 
more fully grasp some of the international issues that she will 
be dealing with, and my guess is in that capacity quickly will 
move up to speed on those issues as well.
    So, 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I join you 
in your assessment of Governor Haley. And we all were concerned 
about her lack of foreign policy experience, but I agree with 
you. Her acknowledgment of and willingness to comprehend the 
areas that she may not have the in-depth knowledge of was very 
refreshing and very encouraging.
    And her experience as governor of South Carolina is very 
impressive. The work that she did in dealing with sensitive 
issues from the Confederate Flag to the tragedy that took place 
in her State, is all very, very impressive. And I also found 
her energy and commitment to the values of this country very, 
very encouraging.
    At her confirmation, I liked what she had to say about the 
United Nations, that she values the work that it does and the 
importance of our engagement. And in regards to the funding 
issues, her statement many times about being opposed to just a 
cut policy of slash and burn, I thought was encouraging for all 
of us.
    Her clarity on our values--American values, global values--
I found to be very, very encouraging. She was very clear about 
Mr. Putin's activities in Syria elevating to war crimes. She 
was very clear about President Duterte's activities and 
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines being gross human 
rights violations. She was very clear about her opposition to 
the registry of any sub-group of Americans. All of that I found 
very encouraging.
    But what I found most encouraging is that she gives me 
confidence that she will stand up to Mr. Putin and stand up for 
American values in the United Nations and will not be 
intimidated. And she will stand up in the Cabinet Room with the 
Trump administration as to these issues. And for all of those 
reasons, I strongly support her confirmation.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2009 or 2010, I 
was at an event in South Carolina. I was an underdog candidate 
for the U.S. Senate, and I was there on a fundraiser that my 
colleague, Jim DeMint, did for me. And I met this young woman 
about my age, state legislator, and people told she was running 
for governor, but she was in fifth or sixth of six people, and 
a nice person, but she is not going nowhere. Well, sure enough 
three months, she--about the same time as I was elected, she 
was elected governor of South Carolina, an amazing story to 
begin with.
    I have gotten to know her. I got to know her real well last 
year when she was helpful to me. And I do admire a couple of 
things about her that I think will serve her well in this role.
    The first is a lot of people do not know this, but Governor 
Haley in her time in South Carolina has basically battled her 
own party's legislature, at least for many years, not simply on 
ideology, but on an entrenched kind of group of people that 
have been there for a long time, and her ideas of changing the 
status quo. And she has, you know, taken on a lot of political 
opposition from within her own party, and through it has 
persevered. We all watched the way she handled the unfortunate 
series of events that occurred in South Carolina that, of 
course, culminated in the whole debate about the Confederate 
Flag.
    And so, I just think she has this incredible fortitude that 
is going to serve her well in this role. I also, quite frankly, 
thinks she is a great ambassador for America. In both her 
personal story, in her growth as a leader, she embodies so many 
of the things that I want people to think America is about when 
you think about America. And I do believe that her background, 
both being a child of immigrants and growing up knowing and 
understanding the greatness of America as not just a Nation, 
but as an idea, positions her so uniquely to be our voice in 
that international forum that faces so many extraordinary 
challenges.
    There is a difference between believing in something and 
having it in your core, and she has these values in her core. I 
am very, very excited about this nomination. I think she--we 
are going to look back on her service at the U.N. I predict, as 
a model of the kind of person we want serving our country in 
that venue. And so, I am excited to support her. I am more 
excited for her, and I really look forward to this committee 
working with her and what I think is going to be a phenomenal 
term there as our representative for the United Nations.
    The Chairman. We have a large number of people here willing 
to vote. Are there additional comments that anyone would like 
to make?
    Senator Udall. Senator Corker, I would like to just make a 
couple of brief comments. The answers to the QFRs are much 
different than, I think, her testimony, so I am going to vote 
no. I just want to highlight a couple of things.
    First, on Cuba, she is against travel, against increasing 
access to the internet in support of entrepreneurs. On climate 
change, she appears ready to oppose the key aspect of the Paris 
Agreement, the nationally determined contribution, which I 
think is the way the--if you are going to undermine Paris, that 
is probably the way you pick to do it. You stay at the table, 
but you undermine it that way. And labor, when she was in South 
Carolina, asked about the minimum wage, more government 
mandates on smaller businesses. She is not for pushing for the 
minimum wage on an international level. Israel, and on her 
answers, I already explored that. Everybody saw that.
    So, I am going to vote no.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to vote 
yes because I think she did, you know, I think a very credible 
job of presenting herself to the committee and acknowledging 
that she has a lot to learn.
    But I would agree with Senator Udall. Some of these 
questions--answers to our written questions directly contradict 
the commitments that she made to our committee. I had a long 
exchange with her in which she made a commitment that the Trump 
administration would not threaten withdrawal of funds to the 
U.N. because of disagreements we had over outcomes in the 
General Assembly. She seems to withdraw from that commitment in 
her written testimony.
    I imagine it is going to be the job of this committee to 
try to figure where the heck this administration is on foreign 
policy. The world has no idea today. And the fact that there 
are contradictions in the written responses coming just days 
after oral testimony to the contrary are not going to help 
solve it.
    So, I am going to support her today, but I hope that we try 
to get to the bottom of where the heck this administration 
stands on some of these really important questions sooner 
rather than later.
    The Chairman. I would like to speak to that after we vote. 
I appreciate you bringing it up. And thank you--I do not agree, 
but I appreciate very much the way you go about business here. 
Yes, sir.
    Senator Young. Just briefly. I want to apologize to the 
senator from Virginia and all my other colleagues. I did not 
have sufficient time to remove my tie before this meeting, so.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young. That is----
    The Chairman. That is it.
    Senator Young [continuing]. Yeah, that is it.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. If there are no other comments, and I am glad 
to--yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. I would like my full statement to be 
included in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Menendez follows:]


             Prepared Statement of Senator Robert Menendez

    Today I will cast my vote in favor of Governor Haley to be our next 
Ambassador to the United Nations. While Governor Haley lacks 
substantive experience in foreign policy, during her confirmation 
hearing and our private meeting she expressed moral clarity in her 
vision for promoting American interests and values at the United 
Nations and is a committed public servant.
    American leadership can only occur if American leaders are present 
on the international stage, and I take Gov. Haley at her word that she 
will steadfastly promote the values of human rights, democracy and rule 
of law at the United Nations.
    I was reassured by Gov. Haley's unequivocal opposition to President 
Trump's alarming statements regarding Russian war crimes in Syria, her 
clear grasp of the importance of U.S. engagement in international 
institutions, and her commitment to uphold longstanding American 
principles and practices at the United Nations by standing with Israel 
and supporting sustainable development goals, including family planning 
programs.
    I hope Governor Haley, as she indicated she would, will seek input 
and advice from the Foreign Relations Committee as she develops her 
agenda at the United Nations.
    Senator Menendez. I am going to support Governor Haley. She does 
not have substantive foreign policy experience, but I think she has 
moral clarity as is evidenced by her testimony before the committee.
    And on a series of issues, from Russia's activities, and the 
defining them appropriately, to human rights and democracy in the 
world, I think she expresses the values that many of us want to see our 
U.N. ambassador advocate. Secondly, I take her at her word that she is 
going to steadfastly advocate those values at the United Nations and 
pursue the course that she largely, both in public and in private, 
said.
    So, I will share some of the concerns about some answers to some 
questions, at the end of the day, I am going to hold her to what she 
said under oath before the committee. And so, I intend to support her 
today.


    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cardin. Before we vote, I understand that one of my 
members is on the way over. I would just ask if we could vote, 
leave the record open for two minutes so that person can get 
here.
    The Chairman. I am getting quite accustomed to that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. There are a lot of hearings going on.
    The Chairman. We will be shooting the breeze during those 
times.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I will entertain a motion, if one would come 
forth, to voice approval by voice vote.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    Senator Cardin. I think they want a record vote.
    The Chairman. I could put negatives in the record.
    Senator Udall. I am fine with a voice as long as you 
record----
    The Chairman. That is fine. Is there a second?
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Senator Cardin. The two, I have got their names in the 
record.
    The Chairman. Yeah, the ayes, we will put those in the 
record, both Senators Coons and Udall. And with that, the ayes 
have it. We will send her to the floor with a recommendation 
that she be approved.
    This is just where we are I know. But I know there has been 
a lot of concerns about the Trump foreign policy. And by the 
way, I think we can probably more fully rely on her oral 
testimony than written statements that, let us face it, a whole 
host of people helped put together.
    But I do want to say that we have all worked together in 
the past to confirm nominees quickly. We do not go through the 
motions. I am talking about for Secretary of State--we do not 
have motions to approve them. We just approve them on the floor 
once they have come out of committee.
    We are going to move Tillerson at the latest date. We have 
not--actually Jim Baker moved on January the 25th, which is 
tomorrow. We moved Hillary Clinton January 21st, Colin Powell, 
January 20th, Warren Christopher, January 20th, even Alexander 
Haig, January 22nd, Dean Rusk, January 21st. I could go through 
a whole host.
    And I just hope that--I know that people are getting things 
out of their system, and unfortunately it is playing out in our 
committee in multiple ways, which is disappointing. But I just 
want to point out that we are going through a process where we 
know the outcome. We know what the outcome is going to be on 
the floor, and we have people that are concerned about where 
Trump is on foreign policy, and we have somebody who could 
possibly help some with that. And we are delaying that for no 
good reason that I can tell.
    So, just an editorial comment. I will make one other. I 
have noticed in each of the committees there has been a 
movement on the tax return issue. We had it today in Banking. 
Lamar, my good friend, and yours is telling me the same thing 
is happening in the HELP Committee. I just want to reiterate, 
and I know that apparently that may--I hope it is not going to 
occur--here with rules.
    You know, we have had a tradition here, and we have 
utilized that tradition to really move people out of here 
quickly. Senator Kerry, which, you know, married a billionaire, 
Secretary Clinton. And I just hope that somehow or another 
before we get to the rules piece, look, I know people are upset 
that President Trump did not turn his tax returns in. I thought 
he should have, too. I agree. But I hope that we are not going 
to try to change the way we conduct our committee because of 
the outcome of a presidential race.
    And I look at some of these questions that have been 
written, asking about whether he sold hay on his ranch to 
foreigners. And it is just a low-level way of approaching what 
we do. On our committee--our nominees go through a grueling 
process, and, you know, it is the same kind of process we go 
through as senators. And I just hope that because a 
presidential candidate did not do certain things that were the 
norm, it is not going to affect the way we do our committee 
business.
    I know that Senator Schumer, my good friend and yours, is 
orchestrating this throughout the system. I know that to be a 
fact. And I just hope that we will not allow politics to infect 
our committee and cause us to stoop to levels that we just have 
not before.
    I think we moved many nominees out every month. Both 
Senator Menendez and Senator Cardin were thanking us for the 
speed with which we dealt with folks, the types of questions 
that were asked. And I just hope we will continue on that vein. 
Hopefully the shock will move out of the system soon and we 
will begin to operate as we always have.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, can I respond?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Cardin. First of all, so the record reflects that 
Senator Booker is here. We had a voice vote, and so I just 
wanted the record to reflect his no vote.
    The Chairman. Unless you want to be recorded no, I will 
leave things like it is.
    Senator Booker. I will leave things like it is.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Let me respond. Look, I value the tradition 
of this committee. The tradition of this committee is that we 
work in the national interest. I would not even call it 
bipartisan. I think it is nonpartisan. And we have comity for 
each member of this committee and for the joint leadership 
between the Democrats and Republicans. I respect that, and I 
want to do everything I can to make sure that is maintained, 
and I know the Chairman feels the same way.
    But at times we do have different views, so let me just 
express this as I see it because I do agree with what you are 
trying to achieve, and I want to be part of achieving that; 
that is, the reputation of this committee to be serious and to 
make sure that we do things that are right.
    This committee, under your leadership showed great respect 
for President Obama's nominees, great respect. And you moved 
them with not only speed, but I think with the right amount of 
dignity in our committee, and I respect you greatly for the 
manner in which you did that. And I am going to try to do 
everything I can for President Trump to reciprocate that, and I 
mean that.
    Once it left our committee, we did not get that respect on 
the floor of the United States Senate.
    The Chairman. All we can control is ourselves.
    Senator Cardin. Amen. That is what I am saying. I cannot 
control what is going to happen on the floor of the United 
States Senate. That is going to be up to Senator Schumer and 
Senator McConnell. And it was the same thing we saw, and you 
performed some miracles to get some of the holds removed, and I 
thank you for that. But we never had the ability to file a 
cloture motion on the floor. I think there was one cloture 
motion that was filed, if I remember correctly, on an Obama 
nominee under Republican control of the Senate. I might be 
wrong, maybe there was two, but I know there was a limited 
number.
    And many of his appointments never got through. Even though 
they passed our committee, they never got through because of 
the unwillingness of the majority leader to file cloture 
motions. And I am convinced had he filed a cloture motion, 
those nominees would have been approved because we had by far 
the overwhelming majority. There were a few objections by 
senators. So, I just raise that because I do not control the 
floor. All I can control is what we do in this committee.
    Let me say one other thing on a general note. Questions 
that are asked by members, I do not believe it is appropriate 
for me as ranking member or the Chairman to question the 
questions that members want to ask of a nominee. Each senator 
has the exact same rights.
    I remember when I came to the Senate in 2007, I remember 
Leader Reid telling me that I had the exact same right that he 
has, the exact same right as any other member of the United 
States Senate. So, I do not question what any one of our 
colleagues here asks on questions. And I think we should not 
try to characterize those questions.
    The Chairman. No, they are for the record. We can all read 
them.
    Senator Cardin. We can read them, and you can make your own 
judgments on them.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Cardin. But I would not question the motives of 
individual members. The volume of questions that have been 
asked by Republican senators and Democratic senators, we will 
go back and check, but my guess is they are kind of comparable. 
And some of the questions that the Chairman or I would think 
are not relevant to a confirmation hearing, my guess is we are 
going to find many examples on both sides of the aisle when 
these questions were asked. But that is not for me to raise. I 
think each senator has to use his or her own judgment as to the 
questions they want to ask nominees, and the nominee has a 
right to answer or not answer as he or she sees fit, and we 
will be able to make those determinations.
    In Mr. Tillerson's case, and I will be glad to go over 
every one of the answers, there are numerous examples of non-
responsive answers. That is his right. He can answer any way he 
wants to answer, but there are a lot of non-responsive answers. 
And so, I just would not prejudge that.
    We did not use that to slow down the process. We are moving 
forward. We voted in committee. I think we picked the very 
first available times for hearings and for votes in the 
committee, so we did not slow things down. And we used record 
speed considering this is a non-conventional nominee. This 
person never served in public life before. He has never been 
vetted before. He has never shown his experience as a public 
official before.
    And the last thing on the taxes issues. This is not 
something I am being directed by our leader to do. This is 
something that I believe is the right thing to do, so blame me. 
Thirty percent of our committees in the United States Senate 
require the production of tax returns. Thirty percent.
    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee to me, if it is not 
the most important committee in the United States Senate, it is 
on the top list. And someone who is going to be Secretary of 
State, I think should produce their tax returns. That is my 
personal belief.
    The Chairman. Why did you not believe that four years ago, 
Ben?
    Senator Cardin. It was not raised four years ago.
    The Chairman. And the----
    Senator Cardin. Hold on. The nominee four years ago had 
already released----
    The Chairman  [continuing]. Eight years before----
    Senator Cardin. They had already released it.
    The Chairman. Eight years before.
    Senator Cardin. But we knew everything about him. He had 
already filed his disclosure statements and his--and his 
stock--all of the things that he had to comply with. We already 
had a public record on Secretary Kerry----
    The Chairman. That is absolutely not----
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. And we already had a public 
record on Secretary Clinton. There was a public record out, and 
we had already vetted all those issues. And, quite frankly, I 
was not ranking member of the committee at the time or chairman 
of the committee at the time. So, it is a different 
responsibility when you become ranking member or chairman to 
speak out on these issues.
    So, look, I respect your passion on this issue. I think 
ultimately this is a decision that we will make collectively as 
a group. What my colleagues have said, we asked whether the 
nominee is willing to make their tax returns available, and the 
nominees have always said yes.
    The Chairman. That is right, they said they would make tax 
information available. But we have not asked for it. We have 
not asked for it.
    Senator Cardin. We have not asked for it, but we have asked 
in the questionnaire whether they are willing to produce their 
tax returns----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Cardin  [continuing]. And he said yes. If we ask 
the question, ``are you willing to produce the tax returns,'' 
one might just suppose that one day we are going to ask for 
those tax returns.
    The Chairman. : If the committee decides. Let me just say 
this. Here is what I am passionate about. You know, tax 
returns, candidly, if you ask me, I do not care. They do not 
actually produce near the information that is produced in the 
Ethics Disclosure Report, not even close. It is not that.
    It is that you guys have constantly talked about the 
bipartisan way in which we conduct this committee. Lamar has 
been the same way. In fairness, Johnny has been the same way. I 
do not know Todd. All of a sudden, the shoe gets on the other 
foot, and we have a different standard for nominees. That is 
what I am passionate about.
    You know, I feel somewhat naive having conducted myself in 
the way I have over the four years that all of a sudden now we 
have an election outcome that is different, and I expect my 
colleagues to conduct themselves in the same way that we 
conducted ourselves, and I am finding a difference.
    So, look, that is what I am passionate about. I do not give 
a rip about tax returns or whatever. I just want the standards 
and the way people are treated to be the same, and this 
committee has been that way for a decade. A decade. And now all 
of a sudden because of a presidential race, everything is 
different. So, that is what I am passionate about, okay?
    Again, it is not this issue. Again, I look at some of the 
people that have been disqualified, our senator from South 
Dakota that could have been head of HHS. My god, our country 
would have been so much better off had he been HHS instead of 
what happened. So, I do not even like those kind of gotcha 
things. I am willing to do what the committee wishes to do.
    And, Ben, look, this is me you are talking to. You know, 
you are not good at contortions. I know that Chuck is driving 
this. I know he is driving this in every single committee. I 
know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it.
    Senator Cardin. Just so you understand one thing, it is 
just not accurate. That is not true. Just when we get to it, 
that is not true. I have never gotten instructions from Senator 
Schumer on this issue, and I am telling you that on the record 
right this moment. And I want to clear something else up.
    The Chairman. I do not want to embarrass anybody.
    Senator Cardin. I have said openly from the beginning that 
the tax returns would not be produced unless the two of us 
agreed to it. So, we are not changing the rules for Secretary-
designee Tillerson. I have also said that the rule that I am 
going to seek to have us vote on, would apply to the next 
Secretary of State, which may very well be a Democratic 
president who makes that nomination in four years from now. We 
do not know who the President is going to be in four years from 
now.
    And it will not allow access to the specific information on 
a tax return, but it will allow us to have the Chairman and 
ranking member review the tax returns. And if there is cause 
for concern, with the approval of the Chairman and ranking 
member, it will go beyond that. I think that is the responsible 
vetting that should be done of a nominee for Secretary of State 
moving forward.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, since you decided to put 
this on the record, let me first say that you know I have the 
deepest respect for you.
    The Chairman. As I do you.
    Senator Menendez. And I appreciate that. And when I was the 
Chairman, you sometimes used your authority and the precedents 
that we had had, even though they are not written into the 
rules, to hold back on certain things for periods of time until 
you were satisfied. And they were not frequent, but they were 
used, and I respected that.
    And when--the question of this issue of tax returns, there 
is a reason that we ask the question under the rules, are you 
willing to come forth with it, because if there is an issue 
that arises that, therefore, one must ask because the 
circumstances that arise as to any nominee--Secretary of State 
or any other--that because their financial interests raises 
questions, as it did in this particular case.
    It is not that other nominees have not had wealth. But the 
question is because of the uniqueness of this nominee and the 
financial interests he had as it relates to a major country for 
which we have a significant set of issues with, that future 
decision making would be affected, and, therefore, having an 
understanding of that was how this arose. So, I do not see it 
as a one-off.
    As it relates to all the former Secretaries of State that 
you mentioned, they all had very deep, deep foreign policy 
experience. These nominees so far have not. Now, that does not 
mean they are disqualified because they do not, but the nature 
of having to do true vetting, the true essence of the advise 
and consent has even gone deeper because they do not have that 
experience. So, to do it, it is very important.
    So, I regret that your characterization or the questioning 
of motives has--that you are upset. But as regards to the point 
of characterizing questioning the motives of members, you know, 
I think many of my colleagues, now in positions of leadership, 
forget that Mitch McConnell said we are going to make Barack 
Obama a one-term President, and then used every procedural and 
other ability to accomplish that. Now, there was relative 
silence on the other side about that, but I did not subscribe 
bad motives to my colleagues because they were following their 
leader in trying to make that happen.
    So, I hope that you think about the context of these 
particular nominees. They are unique. They are unique. I 
supported one today even though she does not have deep foreign 
policy experience. I could not the other. I hope he can succeed 
if he ultimately is confirmed by the Senate because it is 
important to the Nation, and I look forward to working with 
anyone who is confirmed.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Menendez. But I just think that, you know, the 
characterizations and the questioning of motives does not inure 
to the benefit of the traditions that we have had in the 
committee. And I understand what you are trying to preserve, 
and I seek to preserve them as well. But there are 
circumstances, not just simply the questioning of an election. 
There are circumstances that we have some very unique nominees 
that have, you know, real issues that have to be deduced. And 
if you believe that questioning those issues ultimately is in 
violation of the committee's traditions, then, you know, I 
have----
    The Chairman. I am so glad you brought up the Senator 
McConnell issue because that is exactly is what happening from 
my perspective. Yes, Senator McConnell said those things, but 
never, never did you see Senator Lugar nor myself ever conduct 
ourselves in this committee to be infected by that kind of 
thinking. Never.
    And so, I am so glad you brought that up because I see now 
the shoe is on the other foot, and it is not just this. It is a 
whole host of things that have happened since the election has 
taken place And, again, it is just different. It is, you know--
it is just different. And I am sorry, I am going to continue to 
state what I state. Yes, Senator McConnell said the things he 
did. Did we act upon it in this committee? No, never.
    And I am just hoping that because the outcome has been what 
it has been--it has been a shock to the system, candidly, on 
both sides of the aisle. I just want us to continue to be the 
island that we have been of bipartisanship, and I do not want 
different standards set all of a sudden.
    There may be an instance where we wish to pursue something. 
But, you know, Tillerson may not have much foreign policy 
experience, and I wish he was more passionate on these issues. 
Look, I will tell you right now I wish he was. I wish the 
clarity issue was there. Yes, I do. I still think he is 
qualified. But the Office of Government Ethics gave him a 
sterling report. I mean, it is clean. He worked at one company.
    So, again, I know that this is happening in every 
committee, which is different. We will deal with it when it 
comes up. My goal here is just one thing. Let us just keep 
being what we have been. We have been an example to people all 
across the country, we really have. People look at this 
committee under your leadership, and Ben's leadership, and my 
leadership. They look at us as a place that has been able to be 
all the things that people want a Foreign Relations Committee 
to be. And just between things that have happened since the 
election, we are wandering off in a little bit of a different 
direction, and I just hope that----
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, and I 
have the same goal you do. I think every member does. I do not 
think anything that I have seen Senator Cardin do as the 
ranking member suggests anything different, and to the 
contrary. Despite pressures I have seen on him to ultimately 
delay and do other things, he has rejected those----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Menendez  [continuing]. And has worked to try to 
ensure that the essence of this bipartisanship is retained, and 
I regret that you have a different feeling about it. But I can 
tell you from being on the inside of the other side, I have--I 
have the deepest respect for what Ben has done to try and 
preserve the traditions of the committee. And sometimes it is 
not all that easy, but I think he has done it, and I hope we 
get past this period and continue to move as we have.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Young. I will try to keep it very brief. I have 
enjoyed this candid exchange of perspectives and so forth.
    On just point of inquiry here being new on the committee, 
is it the tradition of this committee to have these sorts of 
difficult conversations consistently in the presence of staff, 
or do we from time to time decide that we should--we should 
have them among ourselves?
    The Chairman. I think the staff is very aware of all that 
has been happening.
    Senator Young. Okay. All right. And then secondarily, Ben, 
I will look forward to working with you. You know, if 
prospectively we want to change things here, my perspective is 
if we are going to make these requests of potential Cabinet 
members, we who make the laws--senators--ought to abide by a 
similar sort of standard. So, I think the threshold ought to be 
very, very high, and I think we ought to be willing to step up 
to the plate as well. So, maybe we can have that dialogue----
    The Chairman. Well, maybe we provide our own tax returns.
    Senator Young [continuing]. Yeah. Yeah, that is----
    The Chairman. That might be a good thing to do.
    Senator Young [continuing]. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. If there is no further discussion, the 
meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Paul, 
Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. This meeting will come to order, and I will 
go ahead and make my opening comments because I know we have 
other meetings. Thanks for coming. We will let Senator Cardin 
speak when he gets here.
    This business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order. Today we will organize the 
committee, establish our subcommittees, set the rules, and 
authorize expenditures for this Congress.
    First, we are considering the proposed subcommittee 
membership and jurisdiction of the 115th Congress. I hope our 
subcommittees will continue to play a beneficial 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. I look forward to working with the 
respective chairmen and ranking members.
    Next, we are required to consider a resolution authorizing 
expenditures by this committee during the 115th Congress. 
Lastly on today's agenda, we will consider the proposed rules 
of the 115th Congress. These rules have served this committee 
well in the past. I hope they continue to do so for this 
Congress.
    With that, perfect timing, 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. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry we 
could not have our meeting last night, but I am glad that we 
could accommodate and have the meeting before the North Korea 
meeting.
    Let me, if I might, express my support for the agenda we 
have today. I would urge the support of the subcommittee 
membership and jurisdiction for the 115th Congress, the 
committee rules for the 115th Congress, and the Senate 
resolution authorizing the expenditures by the Committee on 
Foreign Relations during the 115th Congress. All those issues 
have worked out between the Democrats and the Republicans, and 
we appreciate the cooperation as usual in working these issues 
out.
    So, let me in my opening statement talk about one area----
    The Chairman. Why do we not do that when we come to it, if 
that is okay.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. That is fine.
    The Chairman. Okay. First, I would like to consider the 
subcommittee jurisdiction and membership. Senator Cardin, any 
comments?
    Senator Cardin. Move that we approve.
    The Chairman. Any objections?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And the ayes have it and the subcommittees 
are approved.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. We have done all that. Are we good for the 
subcommittees? Okay.
    Next, we will consider the resolution authorizing 
expenditures for this committee during the 115th Congress. 
Senator Cardin, do you have any comments you would like to make 
on this?
    Senator Cardin. I support it and move its adoption.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Anyone else like to speak to this resolution?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the committee's 
expenditures resolution by voice vote?
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. The question is on the motion to 
approve the committee's expenditures resolution for the 115th 
Congress.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Ayes have it.
    With that, we are going to move to the rules, and I am 
going to make a statement.
    There is, you know, a lot of craziness that has happened 
and has been since the election, and this committee has been an 
island of bipartisanship. It has been the place that has 
continued to conduct itself as adults and try to continue to 
look at our Nation's issues in a sound way, and I am really 
proud of that. I am proud to have been on this committee for 10 
years.
    When I was setting up this meeting for Tillerson, I not 
only had extensive meetings and conversations with Senator 
Cardin, but I also had extensive conversations with Senator 
Schumer because I knew he was driving much of what was 
happening. And during that time, Senator Schumer told me that 
the Democratic base was very upset about the fact that 
President Trump had not shown his financials, his tax returns, 
and, therefore, they were going to make an issue of it at the 
committee level. I talked with him again about it on Saturday. 
Same thing.
    You know, we have been a committee that just has not done 
things in that manner. I know the amendment that Senator Cardin 
is getting ready to offer is exactly the amendment that was 
offered in Banking the other day. So, it has been obviously a 
coordinated effort, something that, again, is disappointing.
    We have the ability on the committee to ask questions of 
nominees, and Senator Cardin and I joined together and asked 
some very pertinent questions relative to the financial issues 
of Rex Tillerson, things about foreign involvements, foreign 
income, foreign sales, those types of things, and he answered 
those questions. And I think each of you know the Office of 
Government Ethics gave him a sterling review for the way that 
he had handled things.
    I think you know that four years ago we convened and 
approved Senator Kerry in very quickly. This is a person that 
was a billionaire with his wife, had not turned in tax returns. 
So, I am a little surprised by the newfound interest in tax 
returns, especially when we had someone as wealthy and as far 
flung as that particular candidate. But I know it exists today.
    I just want to say one more thing. I strongly opposed the 
nuclear option. I voted for some really bad people, from my 
perspective, in order to keep it from happening. But somehow or 
another we had to go through the nuclear option, and I know my 
friends on the Democratic side rue that. And I would just say 
that, look, if we have got changes we need to make, let us let 
passions quell. Let us continue to work together in the way 
that we always have. Let us not use this committee as a place 
to make political points.
    So, I hope that--I am sensitive, and I think I know the 
outcome of this vote. I hope that I do. And, you know, in a 
couple of years, if there are things that any of us need to 
look at that we feel like is a better way of vetting folks, I 
would be more than glad to look at it. I am disappointed that 
we are where we are today. Numerous questions have been asked 
and answered. I realize, though, that this will scratch an 
itch.
    And with that, I will turn to Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, let me 
respond on a--on a couple of points. My first call to you in 
regards to the tax returns, I had not had any conversations 
with Senator Schumer before that call. As I am listening to 
your conversations with Senator Schumer, it seems to me that 
you may have talked to Senator Schumer more than I talked to 
Senator Schumer--
    The Chairman. That could be the case. That could be the 
case.
    Senator Cardin. So, let me go back to the original request 
that I made in regards to three years of tax returns. And you 
during a very early conversation said that you thought that 
that would be inconsistent with the practice of the recent 
history, and that you were not going to break the current 
practice, and, therefore, you did not support the release of 
the tax returns.
    We also went over the politics of this, that you thought 
that this was an extension of the debate on President Trump, 
and that I expressed that was not the case and my reasons for 
wanting the tax returns. And then you also expressed that there 
was a concern by Mr. Tillerson in regards to his personal 
privacy, and if you recall that first conversation, I agreed 
with you. I thought that a vetting process should maintain 
privacy where it can maintain privacy.
    And I gave you a commitment at that time that if the 
appropriate staff could review the tax returns, unless there 
was something that struck a concern that you and I mutually 
agreed to--mutually agreed to--all the information would be 
kept confidential. I used that as a similar circumstance of 
what the FBI investigations had done.
    I thought as a result of that first conversation we made 
progress, and, quite frankly, I thought we were going to be 
able to get some accommodations on the tax returns as we went 
through the process, but that was not to be the case.
    I want to talk about the differences here because Senator 
Young raised a very valid point about public officials 
releasing tax returns, why should we not as members of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And I certainly believe 
that President Trump as candidate Trump and as President of the 
United States should release his tax returns publicly. That is 
my belief. And it may be that members of the United States 
Senate or Congress should release their tax returns publicly as 
a matter of transparency.
    But that is not the issue I was trying to get at in our 
responsibility as the committee in dealing with Mr. Tillerson. 
We have a vetting process in regards to Mr. Tillerson, and it 
is pretty thorough. Mr. Tillerson has never been vetted before 
for public office. He is a--has a pretty broad financial 
interest, and, yes, I was interested specifically in his 
foreign source income. I was. I told that to staff that I was 
interested to make sure that he did not have potential problems 
because of foreign source income.
    And we thought that the tax returns would help us in 
understanding that, and I asked questions for the record 
concerning foreign source income and did not get answers as to 
foreign source income. So, it was an area that I thought was 
appropriate for vetting.
    And I come back to the point that what I have requested is 
not for a public release, but a private vetting issue. The 
chairman and I are--had the opportunity to take a look at an 
FBI investigation of Mr. Tillerson. I can assure you the FBI 
questions are much more personal and much more invasive than a 
person's tax returns, and I am not aware of any chairman or 
ranking member violating the confidentiality of an FBI report. 
So, in that same spirit, I thought it was appropriate for our 
committee in the vetting process to take a look at the returns.
    This clearly has gotten engaged in the broader political 
issue. Democrats and Republicans see it differently, and I do 
not--I understand why, and I am disappointed by that because to 
me vetting and public disclosure are two different things. 
Totally different things. And I never would suggest that a 
Cabinet Secretary have public disclosures of tax returns. It is 
not what I ever intended and never sought. And the amendments 
that I have brought forward would not require--in fact, they 
would protect the privacy.
    Now, 30 percent of the Cabinet will go through this type of 
vetting. John Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary, General 
Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Mr. Mulvaney as OMB director, Tom 
Price, HHS, Linda McMahon, Small Business, Steve Mnuchin as 
Treasury Secretary all have gone through process. And I have 
not seen any significant blowup as a result of their tax 
returns being part of the vetting process. In fact, there has 
been nothing written about it that I am aware of, which means 
it is just part of the normal process. I happen to think, as I 
know the Chairman believes, the Secretary of State is equally 
important and has equally challenging decisions as the members 
I just mentioned on the President's potential Cabinet.
    So, for all those reasons, it was my hope that we could 
change the practice of our committee that this would be part of 
the normal process. And to make it clear, the rules that I have 
said is not the same as the Banking. It would start with the 
next administration so that it would not have a partisan view 
as to we are starting under a Republican administration. We do 
not know whether the next administration will be a Democratic 
administration or Republican administration.
    And the proposed rule change would require confidentiality, 
would not allow the members of this committee or staff to have 
access to those tax returns. It would be strictly the Chairman, 
the ranking member, and our staff--appropriate staff, and then 
no further than that unless mutually agreed.
    Mr. Chairman, I share your passion for the--this committee 
and the way we have operated. I have not been successful in 
convincing you of the merits of the proposal or my sincerity 
that requesting this has nothing at all to do with the broader 
politics. This is my first nominee as ranking member that I 
have been responsible for to a Cabinet position, and I take my 
responsibility as ranking member on nominations of Cabinet-
level positions very seriously. And this had nothing to do with 
broader politics as far as my passion for this issue.
    But I have not been able to convince you, and I agree with 
you that the reputation of this committee, the record of this 
committee, on working together on these issues, bipartisan, is 
critically important. And I am going to continue to try to 
convince you that this is in the best interest of the work of 
this committee that Cabinet-level Secretaries make their tax 
returns available to us. If we ask the question, ``will you'' 
and they answer ``yes,'' they have to understand that we may be 
looking at it.
    And for those reasons, I am not going to offer the 
amendment today, and I will continue to work with you because I 
do believe rules changes should be done bipartisan. And we will 
continue to work with you in that regard.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that very much, and 
appreciate the dialogue that we have had. And I do want to 
point out that he did answer questions relative to foreign 
income. Those were joint questions from you and I, and there 
were numbers of questions relevant to that that he did answer. 
But I appreciate what you are saying, and I am sorry for our 
committee that we have gotten all caught up in wrapping around 
the axle here. But I really appreciate your comments.
    So, with that, I guess, is there a motion to approve the 
rules as they are.
    Senator Cardin. I move the adoption.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Second.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank you all. Let us go to work. The meeting 
is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 10:21 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m. in, 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, 
Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. Now that we have eight members here, we will 
go ahead and start the business meeting. So I am calling it to 
order.
    And what we may do is recess for a moment and move to the 
other hearing, and move back to this once we have the 
appropriate number of members here to vote, just to accommodate 
everybody's time.
    The business meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee, as 
I mentioned, has come to order. Today, we will consider the 
nomination of David Friedman to be the next U.S. Ambassador to 
Israel.
    Israel is our closest friend and strongest partner in the 
region, and this position is a vital post. Mr. Friedman is an 
impassioned advocate for America and for strengthening the 
mutually beneficial bond between the United States and Israel. 
He understands the complexity of issues at stake for the United 
States, and the necessity to support a democratic ally in an 
important and unstable part of the world.
    We can all appreciate the sincere desire of the President 
for a renewed attempt at lasting peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians. To represent the United States and facilitate 
that effort, the President needs an Ambassador who shares his 
vision and confidence.
    Mr. Friedman is under no illusions about the difficulty of 
the task at hand, and I believe he views this opportunity as a 
calling and will put his full energy behind service to our 
Nation and our interests in Israel.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member, and my friend, Ben Cardin.

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank you 
for the manner in which this nomination was handled, the time 
that we were given to get the information we needed, the 
courtesies extended during the hearing process, and a thorough 
vetting of Mr. Friedman. So I appreciate that very much.
    And I also appreciate Mr. Friedman's willingness to serve 
our country in this critically important role. And I will 
acknowledge the comments he made during our confirmation 
hearing, his apologetic comments about the statements that he 
had published, were encouraging.
    The United States and Israel have a special relationship. 
That special relationship goes back to 1948 when President 
Truman recognized the state of Israel--I might tell you against 
some of the advice within his own State Department. And ever 
since that time, successive administrations have supported the 
relationship between Israel and the United States because they 
know it is critically important to U.S. national security as 
well as Israel's security.
    We have a country that shares our values. We have a country 
that is reliable as far as intelligence information, and will 
be with us in any circumstance.
    That special relationship has been supported not just by 
successive administrations but by every Congress--by Democrats, 
Republicans, by the House, the Senate. And to me, it is 
extremely important that we continue that united support.
    Overwhelming numbers of Members in Congress understand and 
support the special relationship between the United States and 
Israel on both sides of the aisle. But there are those who are 
trying to divide us and make Israel a partisan political issue. 
To me, that should have no place in American politics, because 
of the importance of the relationship.
    I do not believe that Mr. Friedman can be that unifying 
person as Ambassador to Israel that will unify the support in 
our country and our political process with Israel. I say that 
because of his written comments, and I believe that will come 
back to be used.
    The second concern I have, and why I will not support his 
nomination, is the written statements related to the two-state 
solution, in that he believes there can be peace between the 
Israelis and Palestinians absent a two-state process where you 
have a Jewish state and a Palestinian state living side-by-side 
with security and peace.
    So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this 
nomination.
    The Chairman. Would anyone else like to speak to the 
nomination?
    Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I will also oppose the nomination. I think Mr. Friedman--it 
is regrettable, because he knows so much about the topic. But 
the relationship between the United States and Israel is deeply 
important and the region is incredibly volatile. The last thing 
we need in this position is somebody who has a penchant for 
over-the-top hyperbolic and even false statements.
    And Mr. Friedman, sadly, has not demonstrated the ability, 
in my view, to be diplomatic. We use the phrase ``diplomatic'' 
to convey something--discretion and judgment.
    Scurrilous and sometimes even false statements about the 
President of the United States, about members of this body, 
about other patriotic Americans with whom he disagrees, and has 
the right to disagree, those demonstrate to me that there would 
be a volatility to his holding this position that is exactly 
the wrong ingredient to put into this important relationship in 
this region of the world.
    For that reason, I will oppose him as well. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    Senator Udall.
    Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the ranking 
member in his position, and also what has been said by Senator 
Kaine.
    One other thing, and I think we debated this in depth, that 
I would just point out and reiterate, is that we had five 
Ambassadors, Democrat and Republican under different 
administrations, weigh in on this. And the crux of their 
statement: We believe him to be unqualified for this position.
    So I think it is unprecedented to see people of this 
stature weigh in, and I think we should remember that these 
comments were not comments off-the-cuff. They were written. 
They were op-eds. They were drafted.


          Statement for the Record Submitted by Senator Udall

    Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cardin.
    I cannot recall this committee considering a nominee like this. A 
nominee who has not just simply criticized the policies of the United 
States which he is entitled to do as a private citizen.
    But a nominee who has shown a lack of diplomatic tact and has 
labeled his opponents--including members of the Senate and this 
committee--as anti-Semitic. And worse--he derided the Pro-Israel and 
Pro-Jewish organization J-Street and their members as worse than Kapos.
    New videos of his remarks have come to light from CNN in which he 
supports the conspiracy theory that one of former Secretary Clinton's 
top aides, Huma Abedin, is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    He has apologized to some of his past targets, but I am unaware 
that he has apologized to the President or J Street or Ms. Abedin. In 
fact, he is refusing to meet with J-Street, despite his promises during 
his hearing to meet with groups with whom he disagrees.
    As I observed during his confirmation hearing, his statements do 
not represent American values. His statements are not random ``off the 
cuff'' remarks. Much of his offensive, inflammatory, and insulting 
rhetoric was prepared by him for publication as op-ed pieces.
    Mr. Friedman's appointment would also represent a profound break 
with decades of U.S. foreign policy supporting a two-state solution--
and resisting illegal settlements that make such a solution more 
remote. President Reagan said settlement activity was, ``no way 
necessary for the security of Israel . and only diminishes the 
confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly 
negotiated.''
    I do not believe this committee has ever considered a nominee who 
is both so extreme in policy views and has been so un-diplomatic with 
sustained, deliberate, offensive rhetoric.
    I am not shocked to see a nominee like this from our President, but 
I am shocked that a majority of this committee is apparently going to 
vote for one.
    Maybe Mr. Friedman will keep his word, and stick to his answers 
from his hearing, if is he confirmed to this job.
    Where he did an about face and agreed that a 2-state solution is 
the only realistic situation that the Palestinians would ever agree to, 
and that settlement activity is an obstacle, and that he will apologize 
and avoid vicious personal attacks in the future.
    But a person with this background runs a very real risk of 
contributing to conflict in a dangerous part of the world. This is not 
the ambassador to the Bahamas. The stakes are high.
    To underscore that this is not some partisan point on my behalf, 
Mr. Chairman, I am going to read from an unprecedented letter from five 
former ambassadors to Israel who collectively served in the Reagan, 
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations.
    More than any of us, they understand the tact and diplomacy that is 
needed in the region. And they soundly concluded that Mr. Friedman is 
not prepared for this important role.


        The American ambassador must be dedicated to advancing our 
        country's longstanding bipartisan goals in the region: 
        strengthening the security of the United States and our ally 
        Israel, and advancing the prospects for peace between Israel 
        and its neighbors, in particular the Palestinians. If Israel is 
        to carry on as a democratic, Jewish nation, respected 
        internationally, we see no alternative to a two-state solution. 
        This has been the bipartisan goal of U.S. foreign policy for 
        decades.
          We are concerned that Mr. David Friedman, nominated to serve 
        as U.S. ambassador to Israel, strongly disagrees. He has argued 
        that two states for two peoples is ``an illusory solution in 
        search of a non-existent problem.'' Mr. Friedman has been 
        active in supporting and financing the settler movement. He has 
        said that he does not believe it would be illegal for Israel to 
        annex the occupied West Bank. We believe him to be unqualified 
        for the position.


        Respectfully,


      (Former Ambassadors to Israel): Thomas R. Pickering, 
       William C. Harrop, Edward S. Walker, Jr., Daniel C. 
                           Kurtzer, and James B. Cunningham


    Senator Udall. So I think we are in a far different 
situation than just having off-the-cuff comments.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman: I appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Would anyone else like to speak?
    Because of the committee rules, what I am going to do is 
recess the business meeting into the hearing until we have the 
remainder of participants here, so we can go ahead and vote.
    I hope that happens very quickly. I know some of you have 
other business and some will plan to stay for the hearing.
    So if it is all right with you, Mr. Ranking Member, what I 
will do is recess the business meeting.
    Senator Cardin. Could we just ask at the offices of those 
that we expect to be here be called so that we can get a quorum 
as quickly as possible?
    The Chairman. I think we have some panic-stricken staff who 
have already done that, so thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, ma'am?
    Senator Shaheen. Is there not a quorum present yet? Perhaps 
you should explain that, because I think a lot of people do not 
understand that.
    The Chairman. When a nomination is being voted out, you 
cannot use a proxy to establish the majority of voters here. 
You have to have everyone present, so thank you for asking.
    And I think that the other members will be here shortly. We 
will wrap back in and move the nominee out.
    Senator Isakson, I think you all know, is still away 
because of the ailment that he has had.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The briefest opening comments ever.
    Senator Rubio. I like a dramatic entrance.
    The Chairman. Our member from Florida always seeking the 
spotlight.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. With that, does anyone seek a roll call vote?
    Senator Cardin. I think we should have a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. The question is on the nomination for David 
Friedman to be Ambassador to Israel.
    Clerk, if you 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 9.
    The Chairman. The nominee will be favorably reported to the 
floor.
    I thank all of you very much for being here: I know we have 
differing points of view here, but thank you all very much for 
cooperating and causing this to be a successful business 
meeting.
    And with that, the business meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:18 p.m. . in, 
room S-216, the Capitol. Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Paul, Cardin, Menendez, 
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Markey, and Booker.

             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.
    Today we will consider S. Res. 116, condemning the Assad 
regime for its continued use of chemical weapons against the 
Syrian people. I'm thankful my colleagues came together so 
quickly to condemn this horrible attack by the Assad regime, 
although I hate that we are yet again condemning Assad for 
indescribable crimes. I do think this horrific attack has 
focused the new administration, and I hope we will work with 
them as they develop options to address the Syrian war.
    I want to thank Senators Cardin, Rubio, Kaine, and Gardner 
for bringing this before the committee.
    Any other member comments? Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be 
entered into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

                 [Statement Submitted by Senator Paul.]

    I join my colleagues in strongly condemning the atrocities in Syria 
and the loss of lives.
    Our concern for these lost lives should not cause us to rush into 
another country's civil war.
    I have been saying since 2013, along with President Trump, that we 
should not be engaged in war in Syria. Toppling Assad could well lead 
to a worse outcome, with Islamic radicals in charge of Syria, turning 
their hatred toward the U.S. and Israel.
    I oppose this resolution because it does not explicitly state that 
the condemnation is not an authorization of war.
    War should not come easily. Our constitution calls for great 
deliberation and a specific vote to declare war. We have been at war in 
the Middle East without congressional authorization for 15 years my 
vote today is to send a message that we should not enter a new war 
without constitutional authorization.


    The Chairman. If there is no further discussion on this 
resolution, I would entertain a motion to approve the manager's 
amendment by voice vote.
    [A Senator makes a motion]
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [A Senator seconds]
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the manager's 
amendment by voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And with that the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the resolution 
as amended?
    [A Senator makes a motion]
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [A Senator seconds]
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the resolution as 
amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And with that the ayes have it and the 
resolution as amended is agreed to.
    Senator Paul. Mr. chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
present.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Paul will be recorded as 
present.
    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.
    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:16 PM, in room 
S-216, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Flake, Gardner, 
Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 
Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

             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.
    Today we will consider H.R. 534, the U.S. Wants to Compete 
for a World Expo Act.
    The United States faces an upcoming deadline to take part 
in the Bureau of International Expositions (BIE). Minnesota 
would like to bid for consideration as a host for the 2023 
Expo, also known as the ``World's Fair.''
    This legislation authorizes the State Department to 
participate in the BIE while retaining existing prohibitions on 
the use of State Department funding for U.S. exhibitions at a 
World's Fair.
    The bill authorizes the State Department to accept private 
contributions for maintaining continued participation in the 
organization and to pay for a U.S. pavilion. ExpoUSA and 
Minnesota's World's Fair Bid Committee have agreed to cover 
both past arrears and current dues with private sector 
donations.
    The amendment offered today will clarify that State 
Department officials are barred, in their official capacity, 
from soliciting funding to pay for an expo.
    With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member for his comments.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support 
passage of H.R. 534, which will allow Minnesota to compete to 
host the 2023 World Expo. I believe that U.S. participation in 
World Expos is important because of their capacity to showcase 
America's products, technology and innovative spirit, and to 
promote U.S. exports and job creation. On a personal note, my 
parents met at a World Fair, so I do believe in the power of 
these Expos to bring people together.
    The Chairman. Any other member comments?
    [No comments]
    The Chairman. If there is no further discussion on this 
bill, the question is on the Corker amendment.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No response.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. No response.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye, 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. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 18; the noes are 1.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And with that, the ayes have it, 
and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the act as 
amended?
    Senator Cardin. I so move.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Barrasso. I second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the act as 
amended.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. No response.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye, 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. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14; the noes are 6.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And with that, the ayes have it; and the bill, as amended, 
is agreed to.
    That completes the committee's business, and I ask 
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical 
and conforming changes; without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:47 the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                          TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in, 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Flake, Young, 
Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.
    Also Present: Senator Sullivan.

             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.
    Mr. Sullivan, before we move on to your opening statement, 
we are going to do a little business during the time that you 
are here. We are just going to open up. We will have a rolling 
vote at some point during your hearing process. But we want to 
go ahead and move forward some other nominees.
    So today, we will consider three nominations and multiple 
Foreign Service Officer lists. I want to thank my colleagues 
for helping the committee work through these nominations and 
promotions in an appropriate fashion to allow us to take these 
steps forward today.
    Senator Cardin, are there any comments you would like to 
make?

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Sullivan, we are 
trying to get some confirmed Ambassadors to make your job a 
little bit easier, so I hope you will appreciate the fact that 
Chairman Corker and our committee are moving nominations as 
quickly as possible. One of the things we will ask you to do, 
if you are confirmed, is to get us nominations a little bit 
sooner.
    But in any respect, we are very supportive of the three 
nominees that we have here today, and the list I think we are 
going to take up.
    I strongly urge our colleagues, in regard to Governor 
Branstad, which is a really critical appointment in China, I 
thought he cooperated with the committee and is fully 
qualified, and I strongly support his nomination.
    The Chairman. I do not think anybody misunderstood why he 
had been Governor for 23 years. He was certainly able to answer 
questions in a way that related to people, and we look forward 
to his service.
    I am going to go ahead and read the names of these nominees 
and Foreign Service lists and, at the appropriate time, we will 
have a vote: the Honorable Terry Branstad to be Ambassador to 
China; the Honorable Tulinabo Mushingi to be Ambassador to 
Senegal and concurrently to Guinea-Bissau; Mr. Todd Haskell to 
be Ambassador to the Republic of the Congo; and the five 
Foreign Service Officer lists, as modified. That will be what 
we vote on at the appropriate time.
    With that, we will leave the business meeting open and move 
to your hearing.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection, if you 
want to start the roll call, so that we can keep it as a 
rolling roll call, if you would like to do that.
    The Chairman. If you have no objection to that, we have a 
few members here.
    All in favor of this, en bloc, please signify by saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. We will count those five and 
recess until a quorum is present.
    [Committee stands in recess.]
    The Chairman. We now have a quorum, so with that, I would 
like to go ahead and have a voice vote, en bloc, for the 
Foreign Service Officer lists and the Ambassadors that were 
previously mentioned.
    Senator Coons has already signified an aye as he stepped 
out.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Senator Cardin.
    The Chairman. Before we move on to your opening statement, 
which we look forward to, would Senators Coons, Menendez, and 
Young want to register a vote on the nominations and Foreign 
Service Officer lists, as modified?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I have a procedural 
question?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Menendez. So is the business meeting over? Is it 
rolling?
    The Chairman. It is going to be over as soon as you vote.
    Senator Cardin. It is rolling.
    Senator Menendez. It is rolling. I see.
    The Chairman. It is rolling. That is correct.
    Senator Menendez. This hearing started already.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Menendez. This hearing was supposed to start at 
10:15.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Is there a way to give members notice of 
that, for the future? Because I would have been here.
    The Chairman. I think this is probably the first time it 
has happened in 3 years.
    Senator Menendez. I know, I am just saying----
    Senator Cardin. Can I just make a suggestion that, if a 
member got here by 10:15, on the early bird rule, I would think 
that would be acceptable for the gavel on the hearing?
    The Chairman. That is perfectly fine.
    Senator Menendez. I would like to be recorded as yes.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Just one sentence. One of the folks who is 
being promoted through these Foreign Service lists is Andy 
Herscowitz, who has very ably run Power Africa. He is the 
coordinator being advanced to minister counselor. I just wanted 
to commend him and everybody else on these Foreign Service 
lists for their service to our country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Very good, sir.
    Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Aye. Please record me as yes.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    With that, the ayes have it. The nominations, 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, without objection, the committee business 
meeting will stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:25 p.m. in room 
S-216, the Capitol. Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 
and Kaine.

             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. Today we consider the 
nomination of John Sullivan to be Deputy Secretary of State and 
two Foreign Service Officer Lists.
    I thank my colleagues for allowing the committee to take 
these steps forward today.
    I know that there is concern over the reorganization that 
is taking place at the State Department, and what that will 
ultimately look like. I think Mr. Sullivan will bring a wealth 
of both management and government experience to help the 
transition go smoothly.
    I'm going to stop there.
    Is there something you'd like to say sir.
    Senator Cardin. I agree with the Chairman.
    The Chairman. Do we have a quorum?
    Senator Gardner. Yes.[Laughter.]
    [The meeting is in recess awaiting the presence of a 
quorum]
    The Chairman. We have a quorum.
    If there's no further discussion of the agenda items, I 
would entertain a motion to approve all items, en bloc, as 
modified, by voice vote.
    [A Senator's voice.] I so move.
    The Chairman. Is there a second.
    [A Senator's voice.] I second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve this nomination 
and promotions. All those in favor say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The nomination 
and promotions are agreed to.
    That concludes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be allowed to make 
technical and conforming changes, without objection, so 
ordered.
    And with that, without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:33 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to 
order. I want to thank everybody for being here. Our great 
friend, Senator Cardin, has the benefit of living in a state he 
can drive to at night, but has difficulty sometimes in the 
morning with some undue traffic. But we thank all of you for 
being here, and we hope we will have a very expeditious 
meeting.
    I want to say three things on the front end. First of all, 
we have moved this Iran vote back to accommodate many members' 
concerns about the fact that elections were taking place in 
Iran. And we wanted to take up this issue after the fact, and I 
was certainly more than glad to accommodate that. I think it 
has put us in a position now to pass this bill in an 
overwhelming fashion. But I just want to suggest that it 
demonstrates the committee's desire to work with people in such 
a manner that they can get comfortable with a situation due to 
world events that are taking place.
    Secondly, as it relates to Russia, our relationship with 
Russia is at the lowest point it has been since 1991 for good 
reason. I think all of us abhor what happened during the 
election. We have seen the activities in Syria, Ukraine, 
Crimea, and other places.
    Because of the situation in Syria right now, Secretary 
Tillerson talked to me several weeks ago about the fact that he 
would like at least to have an opportunity, a short window of 
opportunity to see if there is any way to change the trajectory 
in our relationship with Russia. And I talked to Senator Cardin 
about that. I have also met with Senator Carpo and Senator 
Brown on the Banking Committee because they also can claim 
jurisdiction over Russia sanctions.
    I went down to the SCIF this week and read intel on our 
relationship with Russia and what they are doing in Syria. I 
can just tell you, I see no difference whatsoever. It seems to 
me they continue to work against our interests there. But 
unless Secretary Tillerson can come in early in this next work 
session and share with us that these things are occurring that 
are changing the trajectory, it is my sense our committee 
should go ahead and move quickly to deal with Russia sanctions 
in this next period of time.
    I have shared that with Ben. I know Senator Shaheen had an 
amendment today. I talked with her yesterday about this.
    This has been where we have been for some time, and I think 
to give a new Secretary of State some time to try to alter that 
at a time where all of us would like to see an outcome that is 
different from what is occurring to me was an appropriate thing 
to do. But like all of you, I believe that what happened during 
the election is totally inappropriate. I think that Russia has 
been very nefarious relative to U.S. interests in general, 
certainly in Syria and in Europe.
    Thirdly, I want to say that I appreciate the work of 
Senator Flake and Senator Kaine on an AUMF. I know they are 
going to have a press conference today at noon. We have gone 
through the AUMF that you guys have drafted, and to me, again, 
it is the best of the United States Senate working in a 
bipartisan way to come up with something that may, in fact, 
work. I know at the end of last year with an election coming 
up, we felt like maybe that was not the right time to take it 
up.
    The administration says they are going to have their ISIS 
strategy in place by the middle of June. I know that the 
appropriations bill said they could not draw any more money 
until they had that in place. But it would be my hope that in 
addition to dealing with Russia sanctions in the event nothing 
demonstrably has changed relative to the trajectory in Syria, 
that we would also during this next work period begin to take 
up the AUMF that I know people have discussed for some time.
    So, I just wanted to say that on the front end. Ben, I am 
going to make my normal opening comments. My guess is you may 
want to make some comments now, but I am going to through the 
standard opening comments.

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

    Senator Cardin. Maybe if I could, and I think what I am 
going to do is defer my individual comments on specific bills 
to when they are brought forward. So, if I could just respond 
on the first points, and then I will defer to----
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. If you will give me an 
opportunity as we bring up each of the bills so we can move 
this quickly.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Senator Cardin. First, let me thank the Chairman. What he 
has said is absolutely accurate. We have been working together 
on Russia since the beginning of this Congress, and we have had 
different views. And I understand the Chairman's concerns about 
the administration having an opportunity to present its game 
plan, and, of course, to see whether, in fact, there is any 
change in Russia behavior.
    We have seen a change in Russia behavior. It has all been 
bad. It has all been more aggressive and more active. Not only 
did we what happened in trying to deal with our democratic 
institutions, we saw that in the United States, we saw it in 
Montenegro, we saw it in France. We expect we will see some 
things in Germany. But it is also their geographical aggression 
in Europe. It is their aggression in the Middle East. It is 
their human rights violations.
    And as a result, as the Chairman knows, legislation was 
filed very early in this Congress that I authored with Senator 
McCain and 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans. It is a strong bill. 
It is a strong bill and sanctions against Russia because 
Russia's conduct requires a very firm response. And it is in 
keeping with the traditional balance between the executive and 
legislative branch, and provides the tools we think for 
President Trump to make it clear to Mr. Putin that we will not 
tolerate this type of behavior.
    The bill also has a very strong provision in dealing with 
protecting the democratic institutions of Europe and the United 
States, and dealing with the propaganda campaign that Russia 
has waged.
    A couple of weeks ago, the two of us met, and you indicated 
to me that during this work period, you thought we could get 
together on the second part of the issue, on dealing with the 
democratic institutions and dealing with the propaganda. And, 
in fact, we have, and we have on markup today that part of the 
bill that was introduced in the early part of the session.
    I now understand that you believe we can take up the Russia 
sanction in time during the next work period so that we can 
take it up early enough so that it could be considered on the 
floor. And in the tradition of our committee, if we come 
together, I know that we can work together with the Republican 
and Democratic leadership in an attempt to get the Russia 
sanction bill on the floor during the next work period.
    And that is the way I think it should work, and I support 
the Chairman's initiative so that we can attempt to do that. I 
think it is very, very important that we act on the Russia 
sanction bill. And I have no illusions that Russia in the next 
couple of weeks is going to change their behavior. This is the 
deliberative effort to try to undermine our democratic 
institutions. But I do look forward to Mr. Tillerson explaining 
to us the administration's Russian policy, and what he has 
seen, and his impact on Russian behavior.
    The Chairman. With that, on the agenda today, we have a 
number of pieces of legislation, a nominee, and two Foreign 
Service officer lists. We will consider S. 1221, Countering 
Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 that 
Senator Cardin just referred to. The United States did not 
recognize territories of Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova that 
Russia has invaded and continues to occupy; instead we call on 
Russia to withdraw its forces and to respect the territorial 
integrity of these countries. The United States should 
prioritize its aid and assistance programs in ways that 
prioritize our allies and the need to address the threats posed 
by cyberattacks.
    Today we will also consider S. 722, Countering Iran's 
Destabilizing Activities of 2017. I would really like to thank 
all the members of this committee for working in a 
constructive, bipartisan fashion to create this legislation. I 
think the legislation is a good example of how we can work 
together to tackle complex and difficult issues.
    I was in the SCIF earlier this week, as I have already 
mentioned, reviewing some intelligence, and it really is 
astounding what Iran continues to do around the world. For 
people that are capable of so much, and we have some people 
here I know who know that, their foreign policy is shockingly 
counter to their own interests.
    We see destabilizing act after destabilizing act from 
missile launches, to arms transfers, to terrorist training, to 
illicit financial activities, to targeting navy ships, and 
detaining American citizens, and the list goes on and on. The 
bill is the first time Congress has come together since the 
JCPOA, and said that no matter what we thought about the 
nuclear deal, we want to address Iran's non-nuclear bad 
actions.
    Finally, I think it is important to recognize the work 
Senator Menendez has done on this issue. He has been the 
spiritual leader on this for many, many years, and I want to 
thank him for his efforts. He is truly an asset, as we all know 
on the committee, and we are better for it.
    We also want to consider S. 905, Syrian War Crimes 
Accountability Act. And I would like to thank Senator Cardin 
and Senator Rubio for their leadership on this bill, as well as 
other co-sponsors on this committee: Senators Young, Booker, 
Coons, Kaine, Markey, Menendez, Merkley, and Shaheen. This bill 
sends a strong message to Assad, ISIS, and all those who are 
brutalizing the Syrian people that they will be held 
accountable for their crimes, and I am proud to co-sponsor this 
legislation.
    Next is H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability 
in Development, the READ Act. I am voting in favor of the READ 
Act. It restores our committee's role in providing authorities 
and direction for a USAID program that has been appropriated 
without such guidance by our committee for over a decade.
    We will also mark-up S. 1141, the Women Peace and Security 
Act of 2017, which requires the administration to create a 
single government-wide plan to promote the meaningful 
participation of women into peace and security efforts. I would 
like to thank the bill's sponsors in this new Congress, 
Senators Shaheen and Capito, as well as Representative Noem and 
our colleagues in the House, for working with us to improve 
this legislation. And I am pleased that we are ready to move it 
through our committee.
    I would also like to take a moment to recognize our former 
colleague, Senator Boxer. If you will remember, we committed to 
her at the end of last year we would get this dealt with, and, 
Senator Shaheen, thank you for working to get it across the 
finish line, which I hope will happen today.
    Also on the agenda is S. Res. 114, expressing the sense of 
the Senate on the humanitarian crisis in Nigeria, Somalia, 
South Sudan, and Yemen. I thank Senators Young and Cardin for 
this resolution, which calls on the U.S. to lead an urgent and 
comprehensive international diplomatic effort to address the 
obstacles in each of these countries that are preventing 
humanitarian aid from being delivered to those who desperately 
need it. Senator Coons and I saw firsthand what is happening 
there just a few weeks ago, and I thank all of you for pushing 
this forward.
    We will also consider S. Res 18, affirming the U.S.-
Argentina partnership, and recognizing Argentina's economic 
reforms. We thank Senator Coons for this resolution and Senator 
Cardin for working with us to update the text. After its last 
election, Argentina is on a good path, and I think we know 
that. We are impressed with the leadership, and it has been 
helpful in regard to Venezuela.
    We will consider S. Res. 176, a resolution commemorating 
the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. I would 
like to thank Senators McConnell and Schumer, Heller, and 
Graham for offering this resolution. Lastly, I want to thank my 
colleagues for helping the committee work through nominees and 
the Foreign Service officer lists in an appropriate fashion.
    With that, again, I think you want to wait to speak to each 
agenda item, but I will recognize you anyway, Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a 
rather ambitious agenda. We have a long list. I do have some 
comments on some of the individual matters. I do support all 
the items that are on the agenda.
    The Chairman. First and in the interest of time, I would 
like to ask the committee to proceed to consider en bloc the 
nomination for Scott Brown, ambassador to New Zealand and 
Samoa, and the two Foreign Service officer lists before the 
committee. Senator Cardin, do you have anything you want to say 
about this?
    Senator Cardin. I support the nomination and the list, and 
I move that we adopt it.
    The Chairman. If there is no further discussion on this, I 
would entertain a motion to approve these by voice vote en 
bloc.
    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 the nomination and 
promotions.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The nomination 
and promotions are agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 722, Countering Iran's 
Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017.
    Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me 
express my appreciation and support to Senator Menendez and 
Senator Corker for the manner in which this bill has been 
handled. The legislation is a hundred percent consistent with 
our obligations under the JCPOA, an agreement that was 
negotiated by the Obama administration in which we had a 
lengthy debate here in this committee and in the United States 
Senate.
    The agreement is going forward. It is in the United States' 
interest to stay compliant with that agreement, provided that 
Iran complies with its nuclear obligations. The administration 
has certified that Iran has been in compliance with its 
obligations under the JCPOA, and I want to make sure that the 
United States maintains its commitment to the JCPOA.
    Several months ago, Senator Menendez and Senator Corker 
introduced legislation, and they were kind enough to share that 
legislation with me and with others. And we had a lengthy 
discussion as to whether some of these provisions could, in 
fact, lead to problematic concerns, and we negotiated back and 
forth as we should in a--as we should have in an open, 
transparent process.
    To the credit of both Senator Menendez and Senator Corker, 
they opened up that process to outside experts who understand 
the nuances of our relationship with Iran, and understand the 
challenges we have with Iran, not just on the nuclear side, but 
on the human rights side, on the ballistic missiles side, on 
the terrorism side, on arms embargo issues.
    And we were able to refine the bill to focus on what we 
were trying to do, and that is that the despite the fact that 
we have an agreement dealing with the nuclear dimensions of 
Iran, Iran is still carrying out and increasing its activities 
that are--that are against international norms on the non-
nuclear side.
    We were encouraged by the people of Iran in their vote 
yesterday. It was--it was an encouraging vote. I think the 
people of Iran want an open society. They want a country that 
will provide economic opportunity for their children and 
grandchildren. Unfortunately, their leaders are not doing that. 
Their leaders instead are leading the country in a path that is 
causing destruction.
    So, when we take a look at what they have done, in January/
March ballistic missile tests, violating international norms; 
illicit shipment of weapons to proxies in Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, 
Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Assad regime in Syria.
    Last month, I will give you just one example, and there are 
many examples. The U.S. Navy intercepted a boat carrying 1,500 
AK-47s and 200 rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine 
guns from Iran. The Iran fighters in Iraq are violating basic 
human rights and are participating in ethnic cleansing. In 
Yemen, they are supporting the Houthi rebels, threatening U.S. 
commercial and military ships in the Red Sea. Their cyber 
activities are well understood to be against and hostile to the 
United States. They have at least five American citizens in 
custody today illegally. And the list goes on and on and on.
    So, this is not a country that is trying to enter the norms 
of society. Instead, yes, they have entered into a nuclear 
agreement on their nuclear weapons, and we want to make sure 
they comply with the terms of that. But under that agreement, 
we have full rights, and, I would say, obligations to respond 
to their other activities. And that is what this legislation 
does.
    Now, there are some amendments that we have agreed to in 
further consultation with the outside interest groups and 
members of Congress, who are looking at every aspect of this to 
make sure that we are on total firm ground. And I thank 
Chairman Corker and Senator Menendez for the additional 
amendments that deal with--that is in the Chairman's manager's 
amendment, will make it clear that the ballistic missile 
sanctions only go to those individuals or entities that are 
knowingly directly and materially contributing to the 
violations. The human rights activities are only after the 
effective date of this legislation.
    The sanctions under the executive order related to 
ballistic missiles and terrorism that may be entitled to relief 
under the JCPOA, but are subject to sanctions that they are 
still violating ballistic missiles of terrorism, that those 
determinations will be made in the ordinary course rather than 
as an additional certification which cause some concerns to 
some individuals. The enforcement of the arms embargo only 
against individuals who knowingly participate, and the 
coordination with the U.S. and EU, we eliminate going back 
until September 2009.
    So, my point, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill has been 
carefully drafted to deal with the activities that Iran is 
participating in today. I would urge our colleagues to 
understand that what this does, it establishes a regional 
strategy, which is what Congress should require the President 
to do.
    A lot of this, if I might just say for one moment, was 
included in legislation that I filed on behalf of many of my 
colleagues shortly after entering into the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement, both people who voted for and against the agreement, 
because we recognized that it was not the end of our 
relationship and problems with Iran by signing this agreement, 
that there were other issues that we had to be focused on. And 
all of us agreed on that, and that is why I filed legislation 
back then.
    We now know a lot more. And this bill is surgical to deal 
with those types of activities so that Iran understands that 
just because they entered into a nuclear agreement, we are not 
going to permit them to continue to support terrorism and cause 
countries to be--stability to be effective, that they cannot 
continue to violate human rights and ballistic missile tests. 
That is what this bill is aimed at.
    It is the right role for Congress, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
    The Chairman. Any other senator wishing to speak to this 
issue?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Very, very briefly. First of all, I want 
to thank you and the ranking member for all of the work that 
you both put into this along with myself and others who had 
concerns. And I appreciate all of the efforts to come to this 
moment.
    I think Senator Cardin has laid out a pretty good list of 
why. I would just simply add that I know that there are 
colleagues who are concerned about anything we do with Iran 
because they are concerned that somehow it might infringe upon 
either the law, and I would say this very clearly, they have 
gone to great pains to make sure none of this affects the 
JCPOA, but even the spirit. But I would say the spirit of what 
I understood was that Iran was going to also move in a 
different direction, and that certainly has not happened.
    So, I am not one to believe that we must refrain from 
engaging Iran on all of its other maligned activities simply on 
the altar of the JCPOA. I think that would be a big mistake.
    Secondly, if President Rouhani's election is a reflection 
of the hopes and aspirations we have for the people of Iran, it 
is based upon the fact really that they want to see a better 
economy. And I think it gives him an opportunity to say to 
those in the country who have a different view, if we want to 
continue on a path of a better economy, they are going to have 
move away from all malign activities in order not to face the 
very consequences that brought us to the table in the first 
place. And I think this bill does that.
    None of this would go into effect if Iran just simply stops 
those malign activities on ballistic missiles, on terrorism, on 
destabilizing the region. And so, I appreciate all of the 
views. I have worked very hard to try to incorporate all of 
them, and I think we are at a good point in time. I appreciate 
the leadership of the committee and their support.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Risch. First of all, I am going to support this, 
but we should not have to do this. Every one of these should 
have been in the JCPOA. And if they were unwilling to do these 
kinds of things, we would have known, which a lot of us did 
know, that they were not acting in good faith.
    These people are not people who want to get on the 
international stage and take a place with the rest of the 
countries that want to see peace and harmony. These people do 
not want to do it, and they are showing it now. They never got 
off of it. The ink was not even dry on JCPOA and they were 
doing missile tests that violated the U.N. sanctions.
    So, I mean, I am going to vote for this, but, again, 
everybody here is whistling Dixie if you think these kinds of 
things are going to bring these people to heel. We should have 
done it all at once or not at all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Anyone else? Yes.
    Senator Kaine. I just want to clarify. ``These people,'' 
that is a tough, tough phrase. I think we ought to be more 
specific. You can have concerns about policies, particularly 
leaders. We have got no beef with the Iranian people. We have 
got a beef with Iranian people.
    Senator Risch. And I apologize, Senator. I should have made 
that clear. It is the administration. I think the Iranian 
people have indicated over and over again that they do want to 
do what other nations do, but the current regime will not let 
them.
    Senator Young. That is what I construed you to mean, 
Senator. I thought you meant leadership.
    The Chairman. Yeah, if I could, I actually think this 
legislation is very congruent with the will of the Iranian 
people themselves. And it is, in fact, the theocratic 
leadership that is conducting these malign activities, and I do 
not think that is what the Iranian people would like to see 
happen. So, I think we are actually supporting the good people 
of Iran who want to move in a very different direction by 
passing and pushing back against the IRGC and others who are 
conducting these malign activities as part of the old 
revolution when that is not where the Iranian people really 
wish to go.
    Senator Paul. Could I just push back very briefly on that 
point?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Paul. Most of the Iranian-Americans who are in this 
country who came in 1979 who have had their land and property 
taken from them are opposed to this bill. The leadership of all 
the Iranian-American groups, their policy groups, are opposed 
to this, even though they had their land, even though they have 
great opposition to the Revolutionary Guard.
    So, I think it is too much to characterize what the 
feelings of all the Iranian people are, because even from just 
the Iranian-Americans that I have met here, they are opposed to 
this bill. They are opposed to sanctions, and they are very 
supportive of the nuclear agreement.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wish to speak to this? There is 
an amendment to incorporate much of what Senator Menendez and 
Senator Cardin referred to relative to refinements to make the 
bill better. I know that Mr. Szubin had some comments, and we 
have tried to incorporate the constructive comments that he 
made. Some of them we did not agree with, but to try to make 
the bill better, we appreciated his input. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
make some general comments on the bill now as we move forward. 
I am going to support the bill with the amendment that is being 
offered. I thank the ranking member and Senator Menendez for 
working so hard to smooth out some of the edges of this.
    I would just say that while I appreciate the 
representations of the leadership of this committee that in no 
way, shape, or form is this bill intended to undermine the 
JCPOA, there are people inside this administration who want to 
unwind the JCPOA. And while this bill does not actually give 
the administration new powers that they did not already have, I 
think the reticence that some of us have brought to this debate 
is due to the fact that we worry that this can be construed as 
a congressional creed endorsement of actions taken by this 
administration that may not end up not being proportional to 
the threat posed by the Iranians that may have the intention of 
trying to unwind the JCPOA.
    And I understand the administration has also said up until 
their intention is to hold to it, but I know that that is a 
debate that is playing out in real time inside the 
administration. I think we've--I think we've made this bill 
much better to make sure that it does not violate the agreement 
in and of itself, but I would urge the administration to take 
an abundance of caution in applying sanctions to make sure that 
it does not give an excuse for either party to walk away from 
the agreement.
    Second, I just want to recognize that we do not have a 
comprehensive strategy to stop Iran from building up a nuclear 
weapons program, and an example is what happened earlier this 
week. Whatever you think about a sale to the Saudis in the 
neighborhood of $110 billion, it has the effect of creating an 
arms race in the region whether we like it or not.
    Those ballistic missiles inside Iran, they pose a threat to 
Israel, but they are primarily pointed at Saudi Arabia. And so, 
we have engaged in a record level of arms sales to the Saudis 
between the Obama administration and the Trump administration. 
And whether that is our intention or not, it has the effect of 
causing the Iranians to redouble their efforts to build their 
own missile programs. That is not an excuse, right? The U.N. 
has weighed in very clearly on this case, but it is a reality, 
and I just think that we have to have this debate in that 
context.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, you know many of us would much 
rather see a Russia sanctions bill before this bill now ahead 
of an Iran sanctions bill. It is still, I think, hard for some 
of us to understand, given the scope of the threat that the 
Russian interference in this election, that this committee has 
taken no action to hold Russia accountable for their 
interference in our election. I know there is a commitment to 
work on that moving forward, and I know we may have a chance to 
talk about it later. But that just gives many of us great pause 
as we move forward on this debate.
    But I thank the authors for the amendments that they have 
made to this. I will support it given those caveats.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Rubio. My apologies, but I wanted to add my voice 
on this. Three points I would make. And the first is we keep 
hearing repeatedly that the JCPOA was only about the ability to 
enrich and re-process, that it did not involve missiles, and it 
did not involve any of these other things. But, in fact, the 
Iranian position is that it does. The position the Iranian 
regime has taken is any additional sanctions on missiles or 
anything else for that matter, they will consider to be a 
violation of the JCPOA, which is ridiculous.
    And I would also add that there is only reason to have 
ballistic missiles, and really there is only one reason to have 
the kind of ballistic missiles they are trying to build, and 
that is to put a nuclear device on a warhead, or at least to 
prove that they could, and thereby wind up in the same position 
North Korea is in today, which is largely immune in many ways 
from some international pressure because they could blow you 
up.
    And the difference between North Korea, and they are really 
bad, and Iran is Iran actually has expansionist views of sort 
of creating a Shia Crescent and a region of influence, and 
North Korea just wants to survive. That does not excuse them. 
They are a terrible, horrible threat, but nevertheless, imagine 
that in the hands of these folks.
    The second is I agree 100 percent. I want us to move 
against Russia. I would say to you that I know everybody--a lot 
of people here are very concerned. I would say no one is more 
concerned than I have been, perhaps just as concerned, but no 
one is more concerned, and I have repeatedly talked about the 
threat of Russia.
    I recall back in October in the midst of my reelection 
campaign, I was perhaps the only Republican candidate in the 
country--maybe not--perhaps one of the few who refused to talk 
about WikiLeaks because I said it was the work of a foreign 
intelligence agency, and I would not use it against Secretary 
Clinton or even against my opponent.
    That said, that interference in our election is very--it is 
a really big deal. I want us to address it. I think it is a 
major threat to our country, but not less of a threat or, I 
should say, not more of a threat than a ballistic missile that 
can reach the continental United States, which is what Iran is 
on pace to do.
    And so, the idea that somehow we should be ignoring that, 
not to mention the sponsorship of international terrorism. It 
is not just the sponsorship of international terrorism. It is 
the sponsorship of proxies throughout the world with some level 
of deniability who could be activated at a moment's notice to 
attack and kill Americans and our allies.
    And as far as the arms sale, and I know we are going to 
have further debate on that whether it is today or at another 
point. I would also say we cannot go around the world telling 
them on the one hand you must be responsible for more of your 
own defense against these sorts of threats, but on the other 
hand not to provide them with the weaponry they would need to 
address such a threat if presented.
    So, ultimately, countries are going to turn to us and say 
either you provide us the mechanism which we can protect 
ourselves from this growing threat of Tehran and the Iranian 
regime, or we are going to go our own way, and we are going to 
out and purchase this on our own, and perhaps even develop our 
own native capability and reach an arms race that we have no 
role to play in.
    So, I would just say that irrespective of how you feel 
about the JCPOA, we were told repeatedly by the administration 
it did not--Obama administration this did not prevent us from 
targeting human rights, and ballistic missiles, and support of 
international terrorism. And the only people who would argue 
that this is in any way violates the JCPOA is Tehran, and they 
do not get to decide that because we were told that that is not 
what the deal included.
    The Chairman. Any other comments? Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. This is a balanced and well-crafted bill. We 
should move to a vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. That was exactly what I was going to say.
    The Chairman. As to the collection of comments, look, I 
appreciate the passions that people have. Just for what it is 
worth, I mean, I think our goals here are to generate outcomes 
that are good for our country. And I think the processes that 
we are going through and the steps we are going through with 
each of these is being done in a manner to actually generate an 
outcome. And we will take up the important issues that have 
been laid out, and we will do so in a manner to try to generate 
an outcome, not just to express passion, if you will.
    First, I will entertain a motion to consider the substitute 
amendment by a voice vote.
    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 the manager's 
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 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Senator Udall. Yes. Mr. Corker--Chairman Corker, I would 
call up Udall Amendment Number 2. And I would ask also consent 
to put in my full statement because I am going to shorten what 
I am going to say here with your permission.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [Senator Udall's statement follows:]


 Statement Submitted by Senator Udall on S. 722 and the Udall Amendment

    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin. I thank you for your well-
intentioned effort to address some of the legal and technical concerns 
with compliance with the JCPOA. However, I still have concerns.
    First, these changes fall short of addressing all of the necessary 
issues, particularly with regards to the designation of the IRGC as an 
entity for sanctions.
    This has been proposed by several previous administrations, most 
recently by President Trump. But even the Trump administration, which 
has made many confrontational comments about Iran, has not made such a 
stark designation. And it already has the authority to do so under 
existing law, there is no need for legislation on the topic.
    According to the Washington Post, this proposal was walked back 
after hearing concerns from defense and intelligence officials who 
believed that such a sweeping a designation--something we have never 
done against a uniformed foreign military force of a sovereign nation--
would have 2nd and 3rd order impacts on our regional goals, including 
putting troops at risk.
    If there is a chance that we could be putting our troops at risk, I 
think we should be very careful about such a blanket designation.
    And I would note that while this bill does not specifically label 
the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization, it all but accomplishes that 
through the sanctions that will be required under the bill. In Iran, 
this may be seen as a distinction without a difference.
    I understand that there has been an interagency review of the bill, 
but at the very least, I think this committee should meet in closed 
session to hear the arguments from our defense experts regarding the 
impacts of such a move before we rubberstamp it in this committee 
today.
    Until that time, I also believe that we can at least narrow the 
designation to something acceptable. I think there is no disagreement 
about the Quds force and their nefarious activities. So I have 
introduced an amendment to target this organization versus the entire 
IRGC.
    Second, from a larger foreign policy perspective, I am concerned 
about the bill itself and its timing.
    It has been noted that what we do at this committee has an impact 
overseas. It sends a message. In this case, after Iran just had a 
historic election affirming their intention of abiding by the JCPOA, it 
implies that the United States may not be willing to keep up its end of 
the deal.
    Never mind that the bill technically meets the requirements of the 
JCPOA.
    That nuance could easily be lost on its opponents in Iran who may 
portray this as a sign that the U.S. is in violation. And forces within 
Iran may then encourage their government to be more aggressive, risking 
escalation.
    I do not believe that now is the right time to invite the risk of 
further tension and conflict in a region already exploding with bloody 
wars, many of which involve the U.S. to one extent or another.
    In addition, I believe the committee's focus is in the wrong place. 
We should be concentrating on the country that has actively threatened 
the very fiber of our democratic institutions: Russia. Instead of 
sending a strong message to the Kremlin and passing a Russia sanctions 
bill--and I applaud and support Senator Shaheen's amendment--we are 
threatening a key arms control agreement.
    As Ambassador Wendy Sherman said: ``There's no real consequence to 
the bill. It's just really a way to say we're tough. Because we can 
under our existing laws and executive orders, designate virtually 
everybody who might be covered in this legislation. So why risk the 
JCPOA for a bill that does nothing that arguably could undermine the 
JCPOA?''
    Iran's ballistic missile activity is a threat and deserves a 
response. But it has been, and likely will continue to be, sanctioned 
for that activity without this legislation.
    This legislation is not needed to counter Iran, but it increases 
the risk that the Iran nuclear agreement could be undermined and 
therefore increases the risk to U.S. forces in the region.
    That unbalanced trade-off is why I cannot support this bill as 
written today, but hope to work with other members to fix some glaring 
problems that could unnecessarily put our troops operating in the 
region at risk.


    Senator Udall. I concur with some of the comments that were 
made earlier. I have just a couple of general comments.
    I believe that the JCPOA is threatened as a result of this 
bill. I think many of the officials that we respect very much--
Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Sherman, the people who were 
involved in the negotiations--believe if--and have issued 
statements and believe that this bill threatens the JCPOA. And 
the thing that they point out that I think is so strong is that 
under current law, everything in this bill can already be done. 
So, let us not pretend that we are moving forward with 
something that is that dramatic here.
    This amendment that I am calling up deals with Section 5. 
Section 5 designates the Islamic Revolutionary Corp is a 
terrorist organization. This is Iran's main military force. We 
have never done this. This is unprecedented to take a main 
military force of a country and designate them as a terrorist 
organization. That provision of law has only been applied to 
non-state actors.
    There have been some very, very serious issues that have 
been raised, Chairman Corker, in terms of defense and 
intelligence officials that have--about this provision and 
designating the IRGC. They have said, among things, that this 
risks and endangers our troops in the region. They have said it 
undermines our fight against ISIS, and that it could lead to 
war with Iran. The one--and most of this has been off the 
record.
    And I would request that we bring these officials in and 
ask them about this, because the only official that I could 
find, Lieutenant General Robert Garr, that said these same 
statements. He said them, and he is retired. I would like to 
hear from the officials who have said very specifically that 
they think these three things are at risk and this could have 
unintended consequences.
    So, my amendment goes to this issue. What it does is 
instead of designating the IRGC, it targets the Quds Force, and 
everybody knows here what they do and their illicit activities. 
And so, I would first ask that we hear from defense officials 
about what the impact would be of designating the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps, and I would offer the amendment. And 
that is my statement.
    The Chairman. If I could.
    Senator Udall. Yeah, please.
    The Chairman. The bill does not name the IRGC as a 
terrorist organization. It does not do that. It applies 
terrorist sanctions against them.
    Senator Udall. Right.
    The Chairman. That is an important distinction. And to 
limit the sanctions only to the Quds Force would eliminate all 
the nefarious activities that the IRGC carries out through 
multiple subsidiaries that are beyond just the Quds Force.
    So, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate obviously, as 
always, your point of view, and I would be glad to listen to 
other comments. But just for the record, we do not name them as 
a terrorist organization.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman. Would my good friend yield to 
an inquiry?
    Senator Udall. Of course.
    Senator Risch. When we had this argument about the JCPOA, 
as you recall, it was spirited. There were--there were a lot of 
strong feelings on it. We had long hearings and robust 
hearings. We had both Wendy Sherman and then Secretary of State 
in here.
    And there were a lot of us that were very critical of the 
negotiations and the fact that they left on the table the 
issues of supporting terrorism, of missile testing, of human 
rights, and a lot of other things. And they assured us--they 
absolutely assured us, do not worry about that. You guys can do 
whatever you want. This is only--we dealt with only the nuclear 
aspects of this. Do not worry about a thing.
    And a lot of us said, look, these guys are not going to 
change their ways, and the only way we are going to do this, we 
are going to have to re-impose the sanctions. And they said 
this only deals with the nuclear. So, have they not changed 
their position on what they told us in the committee?
    Senator Udall. No, I do not think they have changed their 
position. I think what has happened here, and I think they were 
very straightforward, the officials that came before this 
committee. They told us that this was targeted at preventing 
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, very targeted. They did not 
in any way make representations about that this was going to 
solve all the other problems that was Iran was causing in the 
region.
    And so, I think to keep shifting over to the rest of these 
problems, we have solved a big problem in terms of Iran getting 
the nuclear weapon. We should recognize that. We should protect 
it. We should not threaten it. And that is what we are doing 
today by moving this bill. And we are not even hearing from our 
defense officials who believe that this designation could hurt 
our troops on the ground in the region.
    Let us not forget, in Iraq there are militias that are 
fighting with us to take over Mosul, and there are Iranian 
troops there working with those militias. This designation, I 
believe this is what they are talking about is that we--this 
could cause us a serious problem, so.
    Senator Risch. Again----
    Senator Udall. I think I have answered your question. I do 
not want to prolong this for all the other members, but if 
you--if you have additional questions. I just--I believe this 
designation here is a real problem, and I think we should--I 
think we should really tone it down.
    I had another amendment that I am probably not going to 
offer, depending on how this one comes out. I do not know, 
Senator Corker, whether you are willing to accept it or not. 
But it says--it uses language where appropriate--appropriate--
parts of the Revolutionary Guard. And if you are willing to 
accept that, then, you know, we do not need it. I think that 
would go a ways to help this.
    And I just want to say also, as this has moved along, I 
think there have been other serious problems with this which 
have been resolved and have moved forward, and there has been a 
very constructive effort on your part and on Senator Cardin's 
part.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? 
Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Just very briefly. I would say to my 
friend and colleague, if, in fact, we took the IRGC and 
designated them as a foreign terrorist organization, I would 
agree with you, but we do not do that in this bill. Such a 
designation would have not only have specific language and 
statutory references, but consequences of designating it as a 
foreign terrorist organization would be far beyond those which 
are included in this bill.
    So, I have heard from our military and intelligence leaders 
as well about having any entity in the world that is a military 
entity designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and we 
observed that, and that is why we did not do that in this bill. 
However, the reason that we addressed the IRGC in its entirety 
as it relates to the sanctions applicable here is because while 
we focus on the Quds Force, the reality is that the, as we say 
in the bill, that the IRGC is the primary arm of the government 
of the Iran for executing its policies supporting terrorists 
and insurgent groups.
    And while the Quds Force provides material logistical 
assistance, training, financial support, and other elements, it 
is the IRGC that at the end of the day is responsible for 
implementing Iran's international program and destabilizing 
activities.
    So, I agree with you, if we had designated this a foreign 
terrorist organization, then I would be in not only sympathy 
with you, I would actually support it. But that is not what we 
do. So, I think that since they are an arm that clearly pursues 
Iran's international issues, that to the extent that they are 
committing any of these acts, they should be subjected to it, 
which are less than they would have an FTO.
    The Chairman. Would you accept a voice vote?
    Senator Udall. Sure, unless somebody else wants a recorded 
vote on this.
    The Chairman. All in favor of the Udall amendment, signify 
by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The noes have it.
    Senator Udall. I am going to ask for a recorded vote.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Huh?
    Senator Udall. I am going to ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. You want a recorded vote?
    Senator Udall. Yeah.
    The Chairman. Okay. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes are 17, the yeas are 
four.
    Voice. Mr. Barrasso wants to be recorded aye.
    The Chairman. Do you want to be recorded aye, Senator 
Barrasso? I mean, no?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Senator Barrasso, you are--you are going 
with me.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso will be recorded as a no.
    Senator Cardin. Often, but not on this particular one.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well, listen, thank you. I value obviously 
your opinions. As far as the accepting Udall 1, begrudgingly 
no. So, I do not know if you want to propose it or----
    Senator Udall. No, no, I'm----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Are there any other amendments? 
Yes, Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. It has been said in the debate so far that we 
do not care what Tehran thinks, and if Tehran thinks that this 
is an abrogation of the nuclear agreement, we just do not care. 
Well, think about that statement. If we do not care what they 
think, are we not trying to influence their behavior?
    And if they react in one way and they say we are going to 
get out of the nuclear agreement, I would think that would be a 
pretty important and dramatic step. I am not saying they will. 
They might, though, and we ought to have at least have thought 
through that and at least understand that while we do not agree 
with their opinion or value their opinion, we do care about it 
because that is what we are trying to change. That is what 
trying to change is their opinion on their ballistic missile 
program.
    As I read through the sanctions, you know, there are 
several areas. And I read through, and I will just tell you 
what my first thought was, that every one of these areas of 
sanctions could equally apply to Saudi Arabia. As we look at 
the ballistic missile section, we see that Saudi Arabia has 
Dong Feng-3s and -21s. Where are they pointed? Tel Aviv and 
Tehran. Are these nuclear capable missiles? Yeah.
    Our CIA inspected the DF-21s and said they are not 
currently. But are they convertible? Are they nuclear capable? 
Yeah, they are nuclear capable and pointed at Israel and 
Tehran.
    So, if we are thinking about, you know, with ballistic 
missiles we want to influence the behavior of Iran, one, we 
would have to understand that we do have to care about what 
they think. We do not have to agree with it, but we have to 
care about what they think, whether these sanctions will have 
effect.
    I think being unilateral, and Iran has already stated they 
will, in fact, they will continue, because I think what Iran 
sees as overriding is really not what we think. We think that 
the whole world sees everything through our lens. Iran sees 
much more important what Saudi Arabia does than what we do or 
what our sanctions say, frankly.
    And if the whole world were on these sanctions they might 
consider them, and I think the worldwide sanctions did 
influence their behavior, that and the carrot of giving them 
back some of their money. But I do not think these will have 
any effect.
    I think that if you really, really wanted to get rid of 
their ballistic missiles program, we should look at who else in 
the region do they perceive as a threat. I do not think they 
really perceive us as a threat. We have thousands of ballistic 
missiles, so--but I do think they see Saudi Arabia as a threat 
in the Gulf sheikdoms, and they have hundreds of missiles. They 
see Israel as a threat who has nuclear weapons as well.
    So, I think really if you wanted to influence the behavior 
of Iran, you would include Saudi Arabia in this, too. Let us 
have sanctions on both on ballistic missiles, and let us say we 
will remove them when you come to the table to discuss reducing 
your armaments. Another way of doing it, I think Senator Murphy 
alluded to, was we offering $350 billion worth of new weapons 
and missiles to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you could say we are 
going to withhold that offer until we, you know, see if we can 
get Saudi Arabia to come to the table.
    But it is my belief, and it just an opinion, that Iran will 
never quit developing ballistic missiles unless there is an 
agreement with Saudi Arabia and/or the rest of the Gulf 
kingdoms. And so really, I think this is a fool's errand, and I 
know it is well intentioned, but I think it is a fool errand, 
and it will not work.
    I also think it may have a counterproductive effect in that 
they may decide that the nuclear agreement is something, and if 
they pull out of the nuclear agreement, I think we will really, 
really regret this.
    With the second area that I was struck that it would be, 
with regard to terrorism, that it might apply to Saudi Arabia 
as well, I was struck by two comments. And one of these is from 
Hillary Clinton's email to John Podesta where she says, ``We 
need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence 
assets to bring pressure on the governments Qatar and Saudi 
Arabia, which are providing clandestine, financial, and 
logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in 
the region.''
    So, I do not disagree that Iran has got their hands in 
everything in the Middle East, but does Saudi Arabia. I am just 
not so sure which is worse. I think they both have a lot, and, 
in fact, I think there is a strong argument for saying that 
internationally Saudi Arabia is more of a menace than Iran as 
far as promoting hatred of America and promoting teachings of 
hatred of America. Saudi Arabia is everywhere.
    So, with regard to terrorism, I think another statement 
from another authority I think bears as well. Senator Bob 
Graham said that, ``The ties between the Saudi Arabian 
government and 9/11 are so multiple, and strong, and 
reinforcing, that it is hard to come from reading all this 
material, the 28 pages and all other supporting material, and 
not feel that there is a support network, and that the support 
network came from Saudi Arabia.''
    This has been questioned by a lot of people. I cannot prove 
that it was, but there is certainly a lot of circumstantial 
evidence implicating Saudi Arabia in 9/11, the worst terrorist 
attack ever to happen here. And yet we are fixated on Iran, and 
we do not understand that much of what Iran does is in response 
to Saudi Arabia, or vice versa. I do not know who started it 
first, but they definitely are in relation to each other.
    With regard to human rights abuses, I do not question that, 
you know, Iran is involved in human rights abuses, but anybody 
tried to go to church in Saudi Arabia lately or a synagogue? 
You know, anybody try to bring a Bible in? Do you remember when 
our troops were there and they could not bring a Bible into 
Saudi Arabia?
    Anybody aware of a young man by the name of Ali Al-Nimr? He 
was arrested, I think, 5 years ago, and he is on death row, but 
their death row is a little different than ours. You get 
beheaded and then crucified. I am not sure which happens first, 
but you get both. You get beheaded and crucified. That is what 
he is up for.
    Might it happen? Well, his uncle was executed. His uncle 
was a Shia cleric. And there are over--I think there are over 
20 people being held currently on death row for protests, for 
expressing their opinion. So, in Saudi Arabia you do not have 
the right to associate. You do not have the right to speak your 
opinion. Women have virtually no rights.
    If we are talking about human rights abuses, the girl of 
Qatif was a 17-year-old woman, and she was raped by seven men. 
She was arrested by the Saudi Arabian government and given 70 
lashes because it was obviously her fault for being in the 
wrong place and being alone with an unmarried man.
    So, as you look through this, there is equal argument 
really for Saudi Arabia being included in this. There is also 
the argument that if you were to say this is a two-sided 
conflict and not just a one-sided conflict, and Iran is wrong 
on everything and Saudi Arabia is not, that maybe if we realize 
that it is a two-sided arms race there, that if you were 
putting pressure on Saudi Arabia maybe by not selling arms to 
them, perhaps we would have some influence. Perhaps would come 
to the negotiating table, and instead of new sanctions, we 
would be talking about a new agreement.
    Matter of fact, that is where I would prefer we were today. 
I think as much as I was not a great fan of the nuclear 
agreement, I thought if they adhered to it, it would be a good 
thing. And so far, they do appear to be adhering to the nuclear 
agreement. They do not adhere to the ballistic agreement, and 
they will never negotiate, and this is not a prediction. They 
will never negotiate on it unless you brought Saudi Arabia and 
the Gulf sheikdoms to the table, and I think that would be a 
better place for us to be.
    But I just think it is important in doing this that we put 
things in context, and realize that this perhaps does not work, 
and that if you do want this, if you truly, sincerely want them 
to stop their ballistic missile system, that it is going to 
need some kind of bigger dialogue, including all the Gulf 
sheikdoms.
    And with that, I think the likelihood of my amendment 
passing is pretty small, so I am going to withdraw it
    The Chairman. Are there any other amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the legislation, 
as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. 722, as amended.
    Senator Cardin. Could we just do a recorded vote?
    The Chairman. Recorded vote? The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 18, the noes are 
three.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The legislation, as amended, is 
agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 1221, Countering Russian 
Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017. Senator Cardin, 
would you or any other member wish to speak to this?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I did allude to this a little 
bit earlier in my remarks in regards to the Russian sanctions 
and the--its actions. I have already gone through the 
activities that Russia has participated in compromising our 
democratic institutions in the United States and in Europe. 
They directly interfered in Montenegro and France. We are 
worried about what they are going to do in Germany. We do know 
about their aggressive campaigning on propaganda, and what they 
are trying to do in bringing down democratic institutions.
    This was included in the legislation I filed earlier this 
year with 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans. We have worked 
together to come up with a bill that I believe is a fair 
compromise. It is a strong bill. It bolsters our cyber defense 
with Europe. It helps fight corruption, it helps civil 
societies, and it counters Russia's propaganda with the use of 
media.
    I want to thank Senator Coons for his co-sponsorship on 
this bill, and I also want to acknowledge the help of many 
other members of this committee.
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. You know, I was a struck by a similar point 
in reading this as well. If you look at the findings of all the 
things that Russia has done wrong, I do not disagree with any 
of them. They in all likelihood have done all of these things. 
But if you replace the word ``Russia'' for ``China,'' China 
would fit in every paragraph, and yet we do not sanction China.
    One, they are a great trading partner of ours. Two, we kind 
of want their help. And if you want someone self-sanctioning, 
it makes probably less likely they will help you. It does not 
mean that we acquiesce into what they do. I think we can 
condemn what they do. But I think sanctions probably does not 
make it more likely to get peace in the Middle East.
    I do think, and the Obama administration said this and 
others have said this. In fact, many people on both sides of 
the aisle have said the ultimate peace in Syria is going to be 
a negotiated peace, and you will not be able to eliminate one 
side or the other ever. But Russia is going to be a part of 
that peace whether we like it or not, so do these sanctions 
make it more or less likely that Russia will be helpful in 
peace in the Middle East?
    I agree with the Chairman's assessment. They probably have 
not changed their behavior necessarily in Syria, but they are 
also not going anywhere. They have a naval base there. They 
have been there 50 years. And unless we want to sanction all of 
the human rights abusers in the world and include them, you 
know, if we would like to add China to this and, you know, 
maybe 2 dozen other countries.
    But, and we have had this debate with Tillerson's comments 
about realism versus what we do, you know, whether our job is 
to condemn every atrocity in the world, or our job is to try to 
do what we can to make it a better world, but at the time 
realizing we are stuck with the world as it is and with the 
players.
    But I once again with this do not think that it will modify 
their behavior, and actually probably will lead to a less 
likelihood that we get their cooperation in the near future 
with finding peace in Syria.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me just 
clarify.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Cardin. I disagree with Senator Paul in regards to 
the effectiveness of sanctions, and we do have global sanctions 
under Magnitsky for human rights. The bill that we are working 
on now does not deal with the sanctions. That is going to be a 
bill we are going to bring up at the next work period. This 
bill deals with protecting ourselves and European allies. So, 
it does not deal with attacks--additional sanctions against 
Russia.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree with 
Senator Paul on the China concern. Obviously they, in addition 
to being involved in, you know, traditional efforts of a 
nation-state, are deeply involved in commercial espionage and 
the like against this country, and I hope we will address that, 
too. They are not mutually exclusive.
    That said, the fundamental difference, I believe, is the 
growing body of evidence, and I encourage my colleagues to sit 
tight as the Intelligence Committee continues to work. And when 
our work is done, the full extent of Russian active measures, 
not just to interfere in elections, but to undermine confidence 
and integrity of our democratic system is breathtaking. And I 
think when the American people have a full understanding of it, 
there will be demands for further action.
    And so, one of the things I want to make the point, and I 
heard you say, Mr. Chairman, is that what we are taking today 
by no means precludes that additional step down the road.
    The Chairman. No.
    Senator Rubio. Because oftentimes in this process, once you 
try to come back and do it again the second time, people say, 
well, we just dealt with that before, why are going to back and 
do another Russia bill? And I was pleased to hear that.
    And the third is the point that Senator Cardin just made, 
and that is this is largely--these are not sanctions. This is 
positioning ourselves to protect ourselves and our allies from 
these measures that are being taken to interfere with the 
democratic process and to undermine it, and to sow instability 
and chaos, which speaks itself in terms of what we have seen 
over the last few months and around the world.
    So, I think that is important to understand. This is not 
sanctions, although many of us wish it were. This is a 
defensive measure that protects us and positions us to address 
this because this is not going to stop.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And thanks for your leadership. Senator 
Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I offered the sanctions 
portion in Titles 1 and 2 of the original bill that was co-
authored by Senators Cardin and McCain, both on this bill and 
the Iran sanctions bill. And I did that because I believe that 
Russia poses a very direct threat to our national security and 
to the stability of the transatlantic alliance.
    Now, it has been almost a year since we got the first 
reports that Russia was beginning to interfere in our 
elections. Back in September of last year, I called for a 
hearing in this committee. We did not hold that hearing until 
February of this year.
    We heard from all 17 intelligence agencies that Russia 
interfered in our elections in 2016, and it was not just about 
that interference and what the outcome of those elections were. 
It was an effort to undermine confidence in elections in our 
democracy, and that they were doing it in Europe. As Senator 
Cardin said, in Montenegro they engineered--almost engineered a 
coup.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Senator Shaheen. We saw it in the French elections. We are 
seeing it in the German elections. We saw it in the Danish 
elections. And this is part a bigger strategy. And I have sat 
through hearing after hearing in the Armed Services Committee, 
in this committee, and the Appropriations Committee where we 
have heard from expert after expert about what the impact is of 
failing to address Russia's efforts to undermine our elections 
and interfere in our democracy.
    And I just want to read through a list of these folks. 
General Breedlove testified before this committee. He is the 
former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe. Former DNI 
director, James Clapper, testified before SAS and before 
Judiciary in the Senate. Both of those hearings were in May. 
Former EUCOM commander, Admiral Stavridis testified before SAS.
    Current EU commander, General Curtis Scaparrotti, testified 
before SAS in March. Former FBI Director Comey testified before 
the House Intelligence Committee. Former acting AG, Sally 
Yates, testified before the Judiciary Committee. NSA director, 
Admiral Rogers, who is head of U.S. Cyber Command, testified 
before SAS. And then this week, DNI director, Dan Coats, and 
DIA director, General Vincent Stewart, both testified before 
SAS.
    And the testimony which I would like to introduce for the 
record, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information referred to above is appended to the end 
of this transcript.]
    Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Was essentially the same. It 
was about the threat that Russia poses, and the fact that they 
will do it again and again and again if we do not take action 
against them.
    And I would like to read, if I could, Mr. Chairman, for the 
record a statement by Dr. Robert Kagan, who came before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee last December and talked about 
this. And he said, I quote,


        On the question of Russia interference in the most recent 
        American presidential election, some may not view this as a 
        strategic and national security matter, but it is. Russia 
        interference in Western democratic political process has become 
        a major element of Moscow's strategy to disrupt, divide, and 
        demoralize the West.
          The tactics that was recently employed in the United States 
        is already used in elections and referendums across Europe, 
        including most recently in Italy, and will be likely used again 
        in France, which we have seen, and in Germany, which we are 
        seeing already. For the United States to ignore this Russian 
        tactic, and particularly now that it has been deployed against 
        the United States, is to cede to Moscow a powerful tool of 
        modern geopolitical warfare.


    Now, I just think if we continue to fail to act, it sends a 
message not just to Russia, but to North Korea, to China, to 
all of those who would try and do the same thing to undermine 
our democracy that, go ahead, you can interfere. You can do 
whatever you want because we are not going to take action. 
Well, it is time for us to take action.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you have committed 
in the next work period to mark up the original Cardin-McCain 
legislation, and to work to bring that----
    The Chairman. I committed to mark-up Russia sanctions 
legislation in the event--the probable event--that the 
Secretary of State cannot demonstrably show us that there is a 
change in the trajectory in Russia, and we will do that early 
on. And that is what I have committed to.
    And for a committee that prides itself on diplomacy, that 
is trying to protect the budget at the State Department from 
cuts, that believes that in solving our world's problems, we 
want an outcome, and we are going to use diplomacy to do so. We 
have agreed to give a new Secretary of State a few weeks to try 
to work this issue through, and to me that is appropriate with 
the standing of this committee and our whole objective.
    So, that is what I have agreed to do. It has been a year, 
and it seems to me to give the Secretary of State a few weeks 
to see if he can change that trajectory in Syria is an 
appropriate thing for this committee to do. And as you know, 
with the women's bill, the Women's Peace and Security bill we 
are getting ready to bring up, I keep my word, and you know 
that. And everybody on this committee knows that.
    So, unless, and he has got his representative here--and 
unless Secretary Tillerson comes in and demonstrably can show 
us that Russia trajectory is changing, and I do not think he 
will be able to based on the intelligence I have read, we are 
going to move ahead with a Russia sanctions bill during this 
next work period.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, as I said yesterday in our 
discussion, I appreciated your consideration of that, and I 
think it is very important because I believe we are under 
continuous threat. And as we have heard from multiple experts, 
they are going to look at our 2018 elections. They are going to 
look at 2020. They are going to look beyond. And it has a 
significant impact on the confidence that Americans have in our 
elections, and that undermines our democracy.
    As I said, I am not going to offer my amendment today, but 
I hope to be able to see this committee take action during the 
next work period to address this issue.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your advocacy, and thank you 
for withdrawing your amendment.
    I believe we do have some other amendments to be offered.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up 
Barrasso Amendment Number 1, and the Barrasso-Murphy 2nd Degree 
Amendment if this is the appropriate time.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Barrasso. First of all, I want to thank you, and I 
want to thank Senator Cardin. I want to thank Senator Murphy as 
well as Senator Markey for working with me on this topic. The 
amendment requires the State Department to work with the 
government of Ukraine to develop a plan to increase energy 
security in Ukraine, to increase the amount of energy produced 
in Ukraine, and to reduce Ukraine's energy imports from Russia. 
The amendment provides assistance to Ukraine to implement 
strategies for market liberalization, for effective regulation 
and oversight, for supply diversification and energy 
reliability, as well as energy efficiency.
    The second-degree amendment adds a critical provision to 
support efforts to countries in Europe and Eurasia to decrease 
their dependence on Russian sources of energy. It also ensures 
the plan for Ukraine includes a strategy to include building 
energy efficiency and other measures designed to reduce energy 
demand in Ukraine.
    The committee is marking up this piece of legislation 
today. We all know Russia continues to use its energy sector as 
a weapon to intimidate and influence, and worse, other nations. 
Over the years, Ukraine has lived with Russia repeatedly 
cutting its natural gas supplies, and it is time to act on 
this. So, I appreciate the consideration of this second-degree 
amendment as well as Barrasso Amendment Number 1.
    The Chairman. And I think we are trying to bulk some 
amendments together, including the Risch Amendment Number 1. Do 
you want to speak to that, or do you want to just----
    Senator Risch. No, I will speak to that very briefly, Mr. 
Chairman. First of all, let me join with Senator Rubio in 
urging everyone that--to be patient while the Intel Committee 
works on the report that we are working on. And we will--we are 
doing an active and robust effort to produce a report that will 
define what the active measures were that the Russians took in 
our last elections.
    And I can tell you, it is a very bipartisan effort. 
Chairman Burr and Senator Warner are at this, I think, full 
time. The amount of documents that we have looked at is 
overwhelming. We are in the process of interviewing people, and 
I think we are going to have a report that will be--that will 
generate great confidence in this body as to that particular 
item.
    My amendment simply spreads this a little bit over to the 
European issue. The Russians are doing the exact same thing in 
Europe and have been some time. Our study in the Intelligence 
Committee is not going to necessarily going to delve into that 
very deeply, if at all, and I think it is important that we 
look at what they are doing with our allies, our partners, 
other democratic nations. And a lot of it is not even very 
covert. A lot of it is very overt.
    But what this simply does is ask the President through the 
State Department to produce a report that will focus on and 
complement what we are doing as far as here in the United 
States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy, did you want to speak to 
this? Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. I just really want to thank Senator 
Barrasso and Senator Murphy with the second-degree amendment, 
to Senator Barrasso. This amendment strengthens the bill in 
regards to regional energy security concerns, and I want to 
thank both of them. And I support also the Risch amendment.
    The Chairman. Without further discussion, what I would like 
to do is entertain a motion for an en bloc voice vote of the 
Barrasso Amendment Number 1, modified by the Barrasso-Murphy 
Amendment Second Degree to Barrasso Number 1, as well as the 
Risch Amendment Number 1.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Markey. May I just speak briefly----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Markey [continuing]. To a point which Senator 
Barrasso was making because I think is an important area for us 
to work on and to talk about. And, again, we just keep coming 
back to this point that the Ukraine is the second least energy 
efficient country in the world. It only beats Uzbekistan. That 
is it.
    So, it is clear that if the Ukraine could just reach 
Poland's, not Germany's, level of energy efficiency, but 
Poland's, it would back out all of the natural gas imports. So, 
to the extent to which, you know, we see a problem, it is an 
addiction. They were given the addiction by low-cost Russian 
energy for generations, so its infrastructure, its whole way 
doing of business is all reflected in that.
    But at its heart it is an energy efficiency problem they 
have in the country. They do not have to, you know, reach 
American or German standards, okay, just Polish. So, that is 
what really what we should be encouraging them more than 
anything to do, and to telescope the timeframe that it takes 
for them to get there. We did it in our country after the two 
1970s oil embargos. We had to change our behavior. When it went 
from 30 cents a gallon to 60 cents a gallon in 1974, and then 
when it went up from 60 cents a gallon to a buck twenty after 
the Iranian embargo, we changed. We changed dramatically.
    So, they are going to have to do the same thing, and the 
more they do it is the more we just change the whole dynamic. 
So, I thank Senator Barrasso for his work and willing to work 
with me on this because as soon as you get at the core truth, 
Uzbekistan and Ukraine are at the bottom, then we are really, 
you know, going to be helping them to help themselves, you 
know. We just have to, you know, as they say, teach a man to 
fish, okay. and that is what this is all about. And anything 
else is just going to continue on the same path.
    So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and I want to thank Senator 
Barrasso, Murphy, and Risch for their contribution here.
    Do we have a motion to take these en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. By Senator Cardin. A second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. All in--so moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the Barrasso 
Amendment, as modified, Barrasso-Murphy Second Degree, with the 
Risch Amendment en bloc by voice vote.
    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 
amendments are agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments on this legislation?
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just first, I have 
two amendments, but just first a point of clarification on the 
commitment that you made to Senator Shaheen with respect to a 
path forward.
    The Chairman. Okay. Okay.
    Senator Murphy. So, the elephant in the room is that there 
is a current FBI investigation with respect to whether current 
or former members of the Trump team were compromised by the 
Russians. You said you want to wait to give the Secretary of 
State time to work through some existing negotiations with the 
Russians.
    I just want to make sure we are holding our prerogative as 
a committee to move on sanctions regardless of what the White 
House's request is, that we are not going to give them veto 
power over----
    The Chairman. Yeah. Let me say this. I have had zero 
conversations with the White House. Zero. This has all been 
with our Secretary of State in reference to Syria. Russia is 
isolated by the international community more so than they have 
in any recent time, and there was a slight window of 
opportunity from his perspective.
    I see no evidence of that being altered personally. I went 
down into the SCIF this week. Nothing seemed to me to change, 
but he asked for a few weeks. But we have had no conversations 
with the White House, none, on this issue. It has all been with 
Tillerson. We support diplomacy. A few weeks after a year to me 
did not seem to be detrimental to our efforts, and we are not 
giving up our jurisdiction on this issue.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to 
make an additional point on that?
    Senator Shaheen. Yeah, but if you are done.
    Senator Murphy. I have some amendments, but go ahead.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, can I just----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Shaheen  [continuing]. Make another point? I think 
we are looking at two different issues. One is the 
investigations that are going forward in the intelligence 
committees and the special counsel. That is an issue about a 
number of things.
    But what I was referring to and what I think we ought to be 
looking at in terms of Russia's activities has nothing to do 
with what interactions might have occurred or not have occurred 
between the Trump Campaign and the White House. I think that is 
a different issue, and what we ought to be looking at is 
Russia's activities to undermine Western democracies.
    The Chairman. A hundred percent agree. A hundred percent 
agree. And, you know, I realize that even Syria is not related 
to that, but I also understand that when you are clamping down 
additional sanctions regardless of what the issue is, when you 
are having those discussions, it has a degree of effect. But I 
stand united with the committee in wishing to address this 
issue. And I am also glad to give our Secretary of State a 
degree of time to try to address this in a different way. 
Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. On behalf of Senator Portman, I would like 
to call up Portman Number 1, which I am offering with him, and 
maybe at the same time the second-degree amendment that Senator 
Cardin is offering to it.
    The Chairman. Without objection, you can bring them both up 
if Senator Cardin does not object.
    Senator Cardin. That is fine.
    Senator Murphy. So, to my colleagues, in the NDAA last 
year, we passed authorizing language for a new outfit inside 
the State Department called the Global Engagement Center. The 
purpose of the Global Engagement Center would be primarily to 
push back against Russian-led propaganda.
    To the extent that we are--we are also authorizing this 
funding to be used for those purposes, this amendment seeks to 
square the language in our bill essentially with the language 
of the authorizing statute for the Global Engagement Center. 
So, all it effectively does with the perfect second amendment 
is to prove some additional guidance on how this funding would 
be used to counter Russian propaganda, promoting internet 
freedoms, supporting independent media, supporting civil 
society watchdog groups. And I am glad to offer it along with 
Senator Portman.
    The Chairman. Any other discussion on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Look, I do not know how this is going to turn 
out. I oppose the amendment because the way the bill is 
structured is to give priority. What your amendment does is 
basically do away with that, that instead of prioritizing those 
things that are most important, to use colloquial language, 
this sort of creates a grab bag of issues, which to me is not 
what the bill is structured to do. But each person I know needs 
to vote their conscience here.
    And so, you have offered the amendment. Any other 
discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Do you want a recorded vote?
    Senator Murphy. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. Aye by----
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy. I'm sorry.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. We help each other.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 18, the noes are 
three.
    The Chairman. The amendment passes. Do you want to bring up 
Portman 2?
    Senator Risch. Very briefly, yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator 
Portman has asked me to present this, and this is complementary 
to Portman 1. The heart of this is that it requests that the 
President designate Ukraine as a major non-North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization ally. It also deals with some of the other 
ways in which the sanctions should be handled and taken off, if 
they are taken off, and how Ukraine should be involved in that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will accept a voice vote on 
this.
    Senator Cardin. I am opposed to it.
    The Chairman. I would point out to people this states 
Ukraine is a major non-NATO ally. I do not know if that is what 
we want to do at this time. I just want to make sure people 
understand that.
    Voice. And a voice vote is fine.
    Senator Cardin. Also, look, I support what Senator Portman 
is trying to do. This is not the right vehicle to put it on. I 
would urge our colleagues to reject the amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other statements towards this end?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. We will have a voice vote.
    All in favor, say aye.
    Senator Booker. This is Portman 2?
    The Chairman. Portman 2, yes.
    Senator Risch. Portman 2.
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The nays have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    Any other amendments? Yes, sir?
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have Murphy Amendment 1. 
Mr. Chairman, this is not a new idea, but many of our top 
groups internationally who have been working to fight 
corruption have noted that we have no positions within the 
Foreign Service that are dedicated to fighting corruption. In 
fact, it is normally our officers who will dedicate a small 
amount of time towards this endeavor.
    And so, there have been a number of proposals to set up a 
classification of positions which are dedicated to governance, 
dedicated to fighting corruption. And it would also be a really 
important signal to the Russians that we are serious about 
this.
    So, this amendment would simply set up a pilot program, 
authorize a pilot program whereby the State Department could 
task Foreign Service officers in embassies around Russia's 
periphery and the countries named in this act to dedicate their 
time towards fighting corruption, standing up civil society, 
working with NGOs who act in this space.
    So, I would offer this as an amendment and seek the 
committee's support.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Again, I support the principle of this 
amendment. I am going to oppose it because I just do not 
believe it should be in this bill. This is a personnel issue, a 
matter that I would have our committee spend time dealing with 
when we deal with personnel and priorities for Foreign Service 
officers. We desperately need what Senator Murphy is suggesting 
in this amendment. That is why I support the substance. But I, 
again, do not believe it should be in this bill, and I would 
urge my colleagues to reject it.
    The Chairman. I am in the same position as Senator Cardin. 
Any other statements on this amendment?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Markey. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with 
Senator Murphy. I think that this issue of corruption is right 
at the heart of almost all of these issues. And, again, I'm 
just going to kind of come back to Ukraine. You do not get to 
be the second worst energy efficient country in the world 
unless your entire energy sector is corrupt to its eyeballs. I 
mean, just corrupt.
    And so, we know that about the Ukraine. It's corruption on 
stilts. The energy sector is deplorable. What Senator Murphy is 
saying this is the more that we focus upon countries like the 
Ukraine, and start to talk about Russia, and have our Foreign 
Service corps be raising it to the highest level is the more 
likely we are going to get the core of the governance in these 
countries.
    And I agree with the list of countries that Senator Murphy 
has listed here, and I would support the amendment. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other statements?
    Senator Murphy. I will try my luck at a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. A roll call vote has been requested. I, too, 
oppose the amendment, but I certainly appreciate the fact that 
Senator Murphy at the Maidan at a very important time, and I 
appreciate all of his efforts in Ukraine itself.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Yes by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    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 Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14, the noes are 
seven.
    The Chairman. The amendment passes. Are there any other 
amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing no further amendments, is there a 
motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Everybody falling asleep at this point?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Thank you. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1221, 
Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act, as 
amended.
    I do want to say the operational portion of this has been 
gutted by the Portman amendment. I am going to vote this out of 
committee, but I am very disappointed that the structure that 
we negotiated has been done away with. I will vote it out of 
committee as a show of good faith, even though the bill has 
been tremendously altered. But I want you to know there will be 
further discussions about this.
    So, the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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 Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 20, the noes are one.
    The Chairman. And with that, the ayes have it. The 
legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 905, Syrian War Crimes 
Accountability Act of 2017. Senator Cardin, would you or any 
other member like to speak to this?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your 
help in bringing this forward. I thank you for your co-
sponsorship. I want to thank Senator Rubio for his direct 
involvement in bringing this resolution forward. I thank 
Senator Shaheen, Menendez, and Young for their co-sponsorship.
    We know that the Assad regime uses cluster bombs, chemical 
weapons targeting civilian populations. They need to be held 
accountable for their war crimes. This bill supports the 
transitional justice, any settlement in Syria, a report to 
Congress.
    There are three amendments that I will offer that I think 
are non-controversial, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support the resolution.
    The Chairman. Any other discussion on this?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I would like to urge that we consider all 
three amendments en bloc. And did you just motion that en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. I would move that----
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. The three Cardin amendments en 
bloc be considered.
    The Chairman. Seconded by Menendez. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the three Cardin 
amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    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 
amendments are 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 Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. 905, as amended.
    All in favor will 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.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 601, Reinforcing Education 
Accountability in Development Act. Senator Cardin, would you or 
any other member like to speak to this?
    Senator Cardin. Just to thank Senator Rubio for his hard 
work on this. Education is the best tool to lift individuals 
out of poverty and drive economic growth. Coordinating 
strategies to expand access to basic education around the globe 
is in our national security interests. I support the bill.
    The Chairman. If there is no further discussion, I will 
entertain a motion to consider the Corker Amendment that makes 
some technical date changes by voice vote.
    Senator Menendez. 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 the Corker Amendment.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
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.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. Is there a second? Thank you. So moved and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve H.R. 601, as 
amended.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 1141, to ensure that the U.S. 
promotes the meaningful participation of women in mediation and 
negotiation processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, and resolve 
violent conflict. Senator Cardin, would you or any other member 
wish to speak to this legislation?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Senator 
Shaheen for her patience, tenacity, leadership, and 
aggressiveness in getting this before our committee. Women are 
disproportionately affected by violence and armed conflict 
around the world. They are underrepresented in the peace 
process. This bill will advance global security, and, again, I 
thank Senator Shaheen for her work.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
following through on your commitment in the last session to 
make sure that we took this bill up.
    I want to give credit to Barbara Boxer, who was the driving 
force behind this for so many years, and also point out that 
this is not just good legislation. It makes sense because we 
know, as Senator Cardin said, that women made up fewer than 4 
percent of signatories to peace agreements, and just 9 percent 
of negotiators according to the Council on Foreign Relations 
between 1992 and 2011. And we also know that a peace agreement 
is 35 percent more likely to last more than 15 years if women 
have participated in the negotiation process.
    So, this is good diplomacy, and I appreciate the support 
from all of those who have worked on it.
    The Chairman. Well, I, too, want to thank you for what you 
have done here and your leadership. My only request is after we 
pass this that you please call Senator Boxer and President 
Carter to let them know this has happened, okay? But thank you 
so much for your leadership.
    Senator Shaheen. And I will give you all due credit.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Okay. Are there any amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the legislation?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. Is there a second? Thank you. So moved and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1141.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. Res. 114, expressing the sense of 
the Senate on humanitarian crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South 
Sudan, and Yemen. Senator Cardin, would you like to speak to 
this?
    Senator Cardin. I want to thank Senator Young for his 
extraordinary leadership on this issue of continuously raising 
this at so many of our opportunities. I want to thank also the 
co-sponsors, Senators Gardner, Rubio, and Coons. Clearly this 
conflict-driven famine, 20 million people are at risk of 
starvation and famine, and I am proud to support this 
resolution.
    The Chairman. I would like to second those sentiments, and 
I think Senator Young has two amendments that he would like to 
offer. I would like to take those en bloc if that is, in fact, 
the case.
    Senator Young. Yeah, just offering two amendments in the 
nature of a substitute. So, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
the opportunity to work with you and your staff on this. Thank 
you for your leadership, Ranking Member. And staff has been 
wonderful. And this all emerged out of, you know, our committee 
hearing, which I credit both of you for holding.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Young. Let us get this done. I think we have near 
unanimous for this.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much for your 
leadership on this issue.
    Is there a motion to approve the two Young amendments by 
voice vote en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the two Young 
amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    All in favor, say aye.
    (A chorus of ayes.)
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
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. So moved. Second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 114, as 
amended.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    Now, we will consider S. Res. 18, reaffirming the U.S.-
Argentina partnership and recognizing Argentina's economic 
reforms. Senator Cardin, would you or any other member like to 
speak to this issue?
    Senator Cardin. I would like to thank Senator Rubio and 
Coons for their work. We had the president of Argentina here. 
It reaffirms the U.S.-Argentine partnership. I support the 
resolution.
    We have one more after this.
    The Chairman. If you all would just hang one second, I 
apologize. I understand Senator Coons has two amendments he 
would like to offer. I would entertain a motion to consider the 
two Coons' amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the two Coons' 
amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
amendments are agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Senator Booker. I am going to withdraw my amendment. I have 
serious concerns about Argentina's responsibilities for state-
owned corporations in the United States, but I have been 
assured that there will be an opportunity to work on this as we 
move forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the legislation, 
as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. Is there a second? So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 18, as 
amended.
    All in favor will 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.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 176, commemorating the 
50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Senator 
Cardin, would you or any other member like to speak.
    Senator Cardin. I want to thank our leaders for bringing 
this forward. A momentous occasion, the 50th anniversary of the 
reunification of Jerusalem and our strong support for U.S.-
Israel ties. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
    The Chairman. Are there any amendments?
    Senator Risch. How can you amend that?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve 
the legislation?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 176.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And with that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    That completes our committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical changes and 
conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Good work.
    [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

              Submitted for the Record by Senator Shaheen

             comments on the likelihood of further russian 
             cyber-enabled interference in u.s. elections:
DIA Director Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart
        Moscow will continue to aggressively pursue its foreign policy 
        and security objectives by employing the full spectrum of 
        influence and coercion, including cyberoperations. (Senate 
        Armed Services Committee, May 23, 2017)
DNI Dan Coats
        Russia is a full-scope cyber actor that will remain a major 
        threat to U.S. Government, military, diplomatic, commercial, 
        and critical infrastructure. Moscow has a highly advanced 
        offensive cyber program, and in recent years, the Kremlin has 
        assumed a more aggressive cyber posture. We assess that Russian 
        cyber operations will continue to target the United States and 
        its allies to gather intelligence, support Russian decision 
        making, conduct influence operations to support Russian 
        military and political objectives, and prepare the cyber 
        environment for future contingencies. (Senate Armed Services 
        Committee, May 23, 2017)
EUCOM Commander General Curtis Scaparrotti
        Deterring Russia requires a whole of government approach, and 
        EUCOM supports the strategy of approaching Russia from a 
        position of strength while seeking appropriate military-to-
        military communication necessary to fulfill our defense 
        obligations in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2017 National 
        Defense Authorization Act. Going forward, we must bring the 
        information aspects of our national power more fully to bear on 
        Russia, both to amplify our narrative and to draw attention to 
        Russia's manipulative, coercive, and malign activities. (Senate 
        Armed Services Committee, March 23, 2017)
        Russia seeks to undermine this international system and 
        discredit those in the West who have created it. For example, 
        Russia is taking steps to influence the internal politics of 
        European countries just as it tried to do in the United States 
        in an attempt to create disunity and weakness within Europe and 
        undermine the transatlantic relationship. (Senate Armed 
        Services Committee, March 23, 2017)
Former FBI Director Comey
        They'll be back in 2020. They may be back in 2018 and one of 
        the lessons they may draw from this is that they were 
        successful because they introduced chaos and division and 
        discord. (House Intelligence Committee hearing, March 20, 2017)
Former DNI James Clapper
        Russia's influence activities in the run-up to the 2016 
        election constituted the high water mark of their long running 
        efforts since the 1960s to disrupt and influence our elections. 
        They must be congratulating themselves for having exceeded 
        their wildest expectations with a minimal expenditure of 
        resource. And I believe they are now emboldened to continue 
        such activities in the future both here and around the world, 
        and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a 
        clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the 
        very foundation of our democratic political system, this 
        episode is it. I hope the American people recognize the 
        severity of this threat and that we collectively counter it 
        before it further erodes the fabric of our democracy. (Senate 
        Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, May 8, 2017)
Dr. Robert Kagan, Brookings Institution
        Finally, there is the question of Russian interference in the 
        most recent American presidential election. Some may not view 
        this as a strategic and national security matter, but it is. 
        Russian interference in Western democratic political processes 
        has become a major element of Moscow's strategy to disrupt, 
        divide, and demoralize the West. The tactics it has recently 
        employed in the United States it has already used in elections 
        and referendums across Europe, including most recently in 
        Italy, and will likely use again in France and Germany. For the 
        United States to ignore this Russian tactic, and particularly 
        now that it has been deployed against the United States, is to 
        cede to Moscow a powerful tool of modern geopolitical warfare. 
        It is extraordinary that the United States government has taken 
        no act of retaliation. And it is unconscionable, and an 
        abdication of responsibility, that Congress has not launched an 
        investigation to discover exactly what happened with a view to 
        preventing its recurrence in the future. One hates to think 
        that because the Republican Party was the beneficiary of 
        Russian intervention in this election that as the majority 
        party in both houses of Congress it has no interest in 
        discovering the truth about the foreign government's assault on 
        American democratic processes. (Senate Armed Services 
        Committee, December 6, 2016)
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
        The efforts by a foreign adversary to interfere and undermine 
        our Democratic processes and--and those of our allies pose a 
        serious threat to all Americans. As the intelligence community 
        assessed in its January of 2017 report, Russia will continue to 
        develop capabilities to use against the United States and we 
        need to be ready to meet those threats. (Senate Judiciary 
        subcommittee hearing, May 8, 2017)
General Philip Breedlove, former NATO SACEUR and U.S. EUCOM Commander
        But to the--to the latter concern, I think it's important when 
        we deal with Russia that we are consistent, that we either do 
        not reward bad behavior or that we don't let that behavior go 
        unaddressed. (SFRC Hearing, February 9, 2017)


        I think shocking is how far they believe now they can get away 
        with this in our nation as witnessed in what happened in the 
        election. And so your initiative would be a tool to take the 
        field to counter this war between the line or below the lines. 
        I do not believe that we in NATO, the European Union, or the 
        west in general have really come to an understanding of how 
        we're going to react this--to this war by indirect means or war 
        below the lines, cyber, disinformation campaigns, coercion with 
        force, all of it lumped together in this war. We need a broader 
        approach to how we counter it. (SFRC Hearing, February 9, 2017)


        Part of what happens here is Russia puts out a lot of 
        disinformation that they really don't care whether learned 
        people seeing as being false. And what I haven't seen among the 
        western nations who are under this attack is a strong unified 
        voice of indignation, outrage, and to bring force to this. We 
        see parcel penny packet responses that don't come strongly 
        either in a policy sense or in just a public message sense. And 
        I think that the west who is under attack here needs to bring 
        this together to out the behavior and then try to erode that 
        base of people that want to believe them. (SFRC Hearing, 
        February 9, 2017)


        The cyber thing is even more scary to me because we haven't 
        really defined what is an attack. We haven't really defined 
        policies that say how we're going to respond. We still--I will 
        use the we of NATO--we still shirk from thinking about 
        offensive cyber and only think of defensive cyber when our 
        opponent has taken the gloves off completely. And so I'm a 
        little more scared, Senator, about the cyber thing because we 
        really haven't got a framework yet by which to address it. 
        (SFRC Hearing, February 9, 2017)
Admiral Jim Stavridis, former U.S. EUCOM Commander
        I will just add a way to think about this is the old saying if 
        you live in a glass house, you should not throw stones. I do 
        not agree with that in this case. We do live in a glass house. 
        I think we need to throw a few stones, or we are going to see 
        more and more of this and it will ratchet up over time. (Senate 
        Armed Forces Committee Hearing, May 11, 2017--when asked what 
        will happen if the U.S. does not take action in response to 
        cyberattacks on our country)
Former DNI James Clapper
        I worry about the worst case, which is an attack on our 
        infrastructure. And I think the Russians particularly have 
        reconnoitered it and probably at a time of their choosing, 
        which I do not think right now is likely, but I think if they 
        wanted to, they could do great harm. (Senate Armed Forces 
        Committee Hearing, May 11, 2017--when asked about the most 
        worrisome current or potential cyber threat to the U.S.)
U.S. Cyber Command Commander and NSA Director Admiral Rogers
        We need to look at this end to end and ask ourselves what 
        changes do we need to make in this structure. I think we also 
        need to make it clear to those nation states or groups that 
        would engage in this behavior it's unacceptable and there's a 
        price to pay for doing this...it's one of the reasons why 
        deterrence becomes so important. The goal should be we want to 
        convince actors you don't want to do this, regardless of 
        whether you could be successful or not, it's not in your best 
        interest and you don't want to engage in this behavior. (Senate 
        Armed Forces Committee Hearing, May 9, 2017--when asked about 
        the most worrisome current or potential cyber threat to the 
        U.S.)


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in, 
room S-216, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Cardin, Menendez, 
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
Booker.

             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.
    I want to thank everybody for accommodating this meeting.
    Today we will consider the nomination of Bill Hagerty to be 
U.S. Ambassador to Japan.
    I can say first hand that I've known this guy for years, 
and I'm telling you that he's probably the most qualified 
Ambassador that we're going to be nominating and sending to 
Tokyo.
    He's going to serve us well as it relates to the U.S.-Japan 
alliance. I would say in particular, especially since TPP is 
not going forward at this time, having someone like him in 
Japan is going to really accrue too our benefit.
    I've known him; I've worked closely with him. He was an 
economic development officer for Tennessee, which is one of the 
fastest growing jobs States in America.
    And with that, Senator Cardin, I know you have some 
comments you'd like to make, and I appreciate your 
accommodating this.

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

    Senator Cardin. I had several questions for the record for 
Mr. Hagerty, as part of our committee vetting process, to make 
sure that I was satisfied that he's a person who can exercise 
sound and appropriate judgement.
    In addition to his views on policy matters, I asked him 
questions for the record on his position as a volunteer in the 
role as the director of presidential appointments for the Trump 
transition team, about his role in bringing on board Michael 
Flynn, as well as Sebastian Gorka, and I understand I was not 
alone in my concerns. Senator Corker also asked questions for 
the record along those lines.
    Mr. Hagerty and I met in my office, and in that meeting I 
asked Mr. Hagerty if he had any involvement in these matters. 
He said he did not.
    Mr. Hagerty described to me the work he did as part of the 
transition team. He told me he was focused on Cabinet-level 
nominees and helping Cabinet members get their agency teams 
together. Mr. Hagerty told me he was not involved in the White 
House appointments, which were handled by the White House Chief 
of Staff.
    He told me he was not involved with and did no work on the 
Flynn appointment. He told me he had no contact with Mr. Flynn 
before he was selected as National Security Adviser. He did 
have contact with Mr. Flynn after he became National Security 
Adviser.
    He told me he has never met Sebastian Gorka and was not 
involved at all in his selection.
    Based on my review of his file, as well as his personal 
record and achievements, as already mentioned by the Chairman, 
I believe he is well qualified to serve, and I will support his 
nomination to be Ambassador to Japan.
    I'd also like to add one additional point, unrelated to the 
agenda before us. And that is, since our last meeting the Trump 
administration has indicated that they are looking at releasing 
some of the properties that were taken from Russia. One of the 
compounds is located in my state.
    I mention that because we put on hold the review statute 
that we had introduced early in the session because we were 
under the impression that the Trump administration was not 
considering any reductions of sanctions.
    So, I think it's now important that we put on a fast track 
the review statute that Senator Graham and I had filed.
    We may be taking up Russia sanctions in the Iran bill, and 
I hope that between now and next week we'll have a chance to 
talk about this in additional sessions.
    The Chairman. If I could say three things, and then we'll 
vote.
    Number one, Ben and I are sitting down today at 3:30 to 
talk through some of the Russia issues, and hopefully we're 
going to end the meeting with a successful completion.
    Number two, we plan to pass--I know some of the Democrats, 
in particular, were concerned about moving to an Iran bill 
without a condolence of some kind, given that Iran expressed 
the same sentiments after 9/11--we're going to work one out 
today and hopefully pass it on the floor.
    And, number three, again with Hagerty, I know that some 
people had asked some questions that he was unable to answer, 
but I can tell you he was part of the professional transition 
team.
    I think you all know that there's a government-funded 
transition team that each side has. That's how his involvement 
came about. So you can all be very comfortable.
    Senator Cardin. To make it clear, he did answer those 
questions, directly, in my office in a very open manner.
    The Chairman. He's been precluded from doing it in writing.
    I'd like to ask for a voice vote. And for those who'd like 
to be recorded no, we're glad to do that.
    [A Senator makes a motion.]
    The Chairman. Is there as second?
    [A Senator seconds.]
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    All in favor of this nomination moving to the floor, please 
say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. None opposed. It passes unanimously. Thank 
you.
    With that, and there being no objection, the committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m. in, 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Young, 
Isakson, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. What we have today is a business meeting that 
will consider the nomination of Mark Green to be the USAID 
Administrator, as well as the promotion of five Foreign Service 
Officer lists.
    Ambassador Green has had a long history in both public 
service and international development. His expertise will serve 
him well in this position, and I fully support his nomination.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments you would like to 
make?

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. 
Green's nomination. His experience as a congressman, his 
passion for human rights and democracy, he is the type of 
individual that we want to head the USAID. His championship on 
behalf of the PEPFAR program, his Ambassadorship to Tanzania, 
it is an impressive list. But more importantly, I think he is 
the leader that we need at this time at USAID, and I strongly 
support his nomination.
    The Chairman. Is there any further discussion?
    Senator Rubio. I, too, strongly support his nomination, Mr. 
Chairman.
    And I fully respect the right of all those here in the 
Senate to utilize all the rules at our disposal to state 
objections to public policy and the like. I hope that in the 
case of Mr. Green, in particular, that we would see to it to 
quickly and expeditiously move him to passage. These programs 
are important to our country, and I think he would do a 
phenomenal job in that post.
    So I hope this can move very quickly. I cannot imagine a 
single member of the Senate voting against him.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any other comments?
    I would just, in general, say I know there are some things 
underway, and I hope that once the things that are underway 
end, we can move. I think they have to file cloture on an 
Ambassador to Japan. It is a sad state for all of us. I also 
think that may change soon, and I hope that it does.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciated Senator 
Graham's observations on how this committee works. When 
President Obama was the President, and you were chairman of 
this committee, you moved his nominations through this 
committee very quickly and very thoroughly, in the proper 
manner. I intend, as ranking member, to do everything I can to 
accommodate the efficient handling on this committee of 
nominations from President Trump.
    I think you would acknowledge that we have done that.
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Senator Cardin. Both of us have challenges on the floor. In 
the last Congress, we had challenges on the floor moving 
nominations through, because, in some cases, individual Members 
objected. In other cases, the Majority Leader was not willing 
to give floor time to nominations. We have problems now.
    I agree with you. I think when we have these nominations, 
we want to get them confirmed as quickly as possible. And I 
certainly will work with the Chairman to try to accommodate 
them.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    If there is no further discussion, I would like to 
entertain a motion to approve all agenda items by voice vote.
    Senator Rubio. So moved.
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    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 
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, and without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
room SD-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, 
Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, 
Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. Thank you. The business meeting of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. I want to thank 
everybody for the way that we have vigorously worked with each 
other over the course of the last several months.
    For the third consecutive year, we are meeting to mark up 
the State Department authorization bill, which shows that this 
committee has returned to taking seriously its responsibilities 
for overseeing and authorizing the State Department.
    I want to make just a general statement. This authorization 
process I realize is not particularly satisfying because we 
have to operate in a unanimous consent environment. It is just 
not satisfying, I got it. But our goal is to build out the 
authorization broad enough to where we have time on the floor 
exactly like what happens with the NDAA.
    Once that occurs, then we moved from permissive type things 
to mandating, and we moved to a place where people are voting 
up and down on the floor because you have got a real bill, or 
up and down in committee because you have got a bill that is 
actually directing policy at the State Department. So, again, 
this is not fun. I mean, people would rather weigh in far more 
strongly on issues.
    But, this is not going to improve to the next chairman. Do 
you understand? I mean, the likelihood is this takes another 
year or two to build out, and someone else leading this 
committee will benefit from all of our work, as will all our 
committee members. But--look, it is not fun. There are things 
that I would like to weigh in and, by gosh, say this is the way 
it is going to be at the State Department. But when you are 
operating in a unanimous consent environment, it is difficult 
to do those things.
    So, I want to thank everybody for cooperating with us, and 
getting us to a place that hopefully in the next year or two, 
we have got a bill on the floor for ten days where people on 
this committee are driving, mandating policies within the State 
Department, so thank you. And people have been very 
cooperative. And, again, it is kind of like I can use an old 
adage that I will not use, but it is not that much fun, I 
realize.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, ma'am? I am still giving opening 
comments, but go ahead.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Shaheen. Oh, well, when you are finished, I was 
hoping that maybe I could make a statement because I have to go 
to Appropriations.
    The Chairman. Well, go ahead.
    Senator Shaheen. I just wanted to thank you and Senator 
Cardin for working with me on the Office of Global Women's 
Issues and on the ambassador's position. I know that there was 
concern about that, and I appreciate that we were able to get 
an agreement in the manager's amendment.
    And I wanted to just explain, because I will not be here 
when we adopt the manager's amendment, to tell people why I 
feel so strongly about the importance of having an ambassador 
to head that position, because as I heard from the most recent 
ambassador, Melanne Verveer, this office existed under both the 
Clinton and the George W. Bush administrations, but it was not 
until she was appointed that it was raised to the level of 
ambassador.
    And what she says is that because it was not in the line of 
authority that provided credibility, there is--the purposes of 
authority on these issues within our government and the role 
that it represented or in relations with other governments 
multilateral is a Senate confirmed ambassador made all the 
difference. She says, ``I attended senior staff meetings at 
State, which sent a signal that gender issues can impact the 
effectiveness of our policies and programs, no matter the area, 
from economics to security.'' She says, ``Either we are serious 
about these issues, or we are not,'' and that is sort of my 
view. And I think that is what having that ambassador position 
allows us to do.
    So, I very much appreciate your working with us, and 
Senator Cardin's engagement, and the support from Senators 
Rubio, Isakson, Senator Menendez, and everybody on both sides 
of the aisle that worked on this.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate you working both on the 
flexibility of using more permissive-like language. I think you 
have won the day on this issue. And, again, I want to thank 
everybody for the way they have worked with us.
    Getting a version of our last two State Department 
authorization bills signed into law at the end of last year and 
what we will do today demonstrates this committee's role in 
protecting our country's national security and advancing its 
interests. It also lays a strong groundwork for a more robust 
authorization bill in the future.
    There have been concerns about passing a State Department 
authorization in a bill when the Department is considering 
reorganization. I have heard it loud and clear. I think 
exercising our oversight in this way actually prepares us to 
engage more meaningfully, especially with some of the 
amendments that have been added, meaningfully in the redesign 
process as it unfolds.
    Committee members will have their own opinions of the State 
Department's proposals to redesign itself, and some of those 
proposals will require legislation to implement, and we will 
talk about that later. With three consecutive State 
authorization bills under our belt, I am confident in our 
ability to address those issues in our next bill.
    However, for this bill, and we worked to add all kinds of 
amendments into the manager's package, the ranking member and I 
have agreed to vote against any amendments that are not in the 
manager's package just to cooperate in trying to get a good 
bill across the floor. And I thank Senator Cardin for his 
willingness to do that.
    The bill before us is a package of good government reforms 
and the product of extensive research, creative legislation and 
careful negotiation. It gives our committee a role in the State 
and USAID's redesign effort, and improves their strategic 
planning efforts, and institutes a host of embassy construction 
reforms aimed at getting our people into more secure facilities 
faster and at less expense to the taxpayer.
    It reins in proliferation of special envoys in the 
Department--I think there are 68 of those--which has been so 
harmful to the morale and productivity, and enhances the 
Department's data collection efforts to optimize its workforce. 
It restructures certain special cases to be more responsible to 
the preferences of Foreign Service officers, and gives them and 
their family members more options for visiting each other while 
they are separated due to difficult assignments. It helps the 
Department protect its IT networks from intrusion and secured 
classified information. It seeks to improve the effectiveness 
of public diplomacy programs, and it improves the State 
Department's efforts to fight corruption worldwide.
    I especially want to thank the subcommittees for the 
subcommittees for their contributions to this bill. I would 
like to thank especially Senator Cardin for helping us advance 
another bipartisan authorization through committee. We are 
determined to get this bill signed into law and to continue the 
good oversight work of this committee through the ongoing 
authorization process.
    We will also consider a number of nominations today. I want 
to thank my colleagues for helping the committee work through 
these nominations in an appropriate fashion, and allowing us to 
take these steps forward. I truly appreciate the bipartisan 
effort made today.
    Lastly, I want to say a few things about Section 301 in the 
State Department bill, the section dealing with special envoys. 
Because there are different categories of envoys, I think it is 
important that we all are on the same page about what this 
provision does. First, none of the special envoys that are 
mandated in the law, such as envoys for anti-Semitism, North 
Korean human rights, and ambassador-at-large for religious 
freedom, et cetera, are modified in any way, except that we add 
advice and consent to the three of those that we don't already 
have in that capacity. The only exception to that is the 
special envoy for Burma, because that position was created 
before we had diplomatic relations with the country. And since 
we have an ambassador there now, we are just cleaning up the 
Code in that effect.
    Second, none of the seven permissibly authorized envoys, 
such as the envoys for Global Women's Issues, Disability 
Rights, and South Sudan, are modified or eliminated in any way, 
except that we require advice and consent for those positions 
as well. And, Senator Shaheen, we modified the manager's 
amendment to address the issue she just spoke to.
    In fact, this bill reauthorizes the Offices of Global 
Women's Issues and Disability Rights for the first time in well 
over a decade. It also reinforces our view that these issues 
should remain priorities for the administration while giving 
the Secretary of State the flexibility to place the person who 
handles them where it makes the most sense in the Department.
    Now, on 47 administratively created envoys, this provision 
has two key components. It forces the Department to analyze 
each one independently to determine if the position is still 
necessary, and, if so, where in the Department it should be 
placed. It reasserts the constitutional prerogative of the 
Senate to give its advice and consent to the officers that are 
wielding significant authority, something that we have all had 
concerns about. As these positions have proliferated, the 
individuals who hold them represent the United States in key 
negotiations, allocate millions of dollars, and set policy for 
the Nation, all without proper Senate oversight.
    As reflected in the listening tour report commissioned by 
Secretary Tillerson, the professional staff at the State 
Department believe these envoys do more harm than good, not 
every single person, but as a group. Their proliferation leads 
to divided policies, an unclear chain of command, a waste of 
resources. And while some envoys that currently exist may need 
to remain, we are putting a systematic approach for the 
administration to inform this body as to why we want to keep 
them.
    I also want to make it abundantly clear that all 47 of 
these envoys are being treated equally. It is not presupposed 
that any of them should be eliminated. Furthermore, it does not 
prevent any from being created in the future if the Secretary 
sees fit. It also allows a Secretary to immediately appoint a 
special envoy to address an emergency situation, as long as the 
name of that individual is submitted to the committee within 90 
days.
    And this provision is also foundational. After we receive a 
full report of the proposed redesign, the subsequent State 
Department bill will be much more concerned about the structure 
of the Department. We will be able to determine the future of 
specific entities with greater clarity about the direction the 
administration intends to go.
    I know you have some comments. Thank you all for letting me 
go through that prolonged opening statement. Senator Cardin, 
thank you and so many others for allowing us to be where we 
are, but especially you and your staff.

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman let me just complete the 
special envoys, and then I will go back to some opening 
comments, if I might.
    Thank you for your explanation. I share your interpretation 
of Section 301 and the clarity that it provides to the offices 
and positions of the special envoys and representatives where 
Congress has expressed its voice, and views, and legislation. 
As you know, it was important to me and to many members on my 
side that these offices where Congress has expressed our views 
not be subject to possible administrative elimination by the 
Secretary. So, I appreciate you working with us to ensure that 
we have a good structure to protect these envoys.
    I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that currently all these 
positions are subject to elimination by the Secretary of State 
without any congressional input. So, the process that we put in 
place in this bill calling for a report and then within a 
period for Congress to review the Secretary's recommendation 
before they go into effect, and to engage with the Secretary, 
or offer legislation, or take other action if we have different 
views, provides an important mechanism for Congress and for 
this committee to help play a role in determining the future of 
these special envoy positions. This is significant, in my view.
    Mr. Chairman, let me, if I might, just on an overview of 
the--of our agenda for today. I strongly support the 
authorization bill that has been presented to our members today 
with the manager's amendment. As Chairman Corker has said, it 
is our responsibility, one of our principal responsibilities as 
oversight, and this bill carries out that very important 
responsibility. The chairman had a very open and transparent 
process in the development of this legislation. Our 
subcommittees worked and had input, and much of that input is 
reflected in the--in the legislation that is before you.
    I share the Chairman's view that we need to get beyond this 
consensus type State authorization bill that we have done now, 
hopefully, in the 3 consecutive years. This committee needs to 
use the same type of process that the Department of Defense, 
the National Defense Authorization Act, the Armed Services 
Committee uses for taking up authorization bills. That means we 
can be bolder in this committee and offer amendments that can 
be challenging, that may not have consensus, but are the right 
role for this committee. And we have confidence on the floor of 
the United States Senate that we can defend that bill and take 
amendments on the floor of the United States. That to me is 
where we need to be sooner rather than later. And I hope that 
this process that we have started under Chairman Corker's 
leadership can lead to that in the very, very near future.
    This bill contains some very important provisions, and I 
just wanted to go through them quickly. First, in 
reorganization. It does allow our committee and the United 
States Senate to have feedback and influence in the process 
before decisions are made. Without this legislation, we do not 
have that process. And I want to thank all members who added to 
that, but I particularly want to thank Senator Merkley.
    One of the last additions to the manager's package will 
extend the time for our review, and Senator Merkley was 
instrumental in getting that done. Senator Shaheen was also 
very much involved in making sure we have an effective review 
process so that we can have our input.
    I want to thank almost every member of this committee for 
expressing your preferences and getting on the front end some 
very important priorities. We already talked about the Office 
of Global Women's Issues and Senator Shaheen's amendment on the 
ambassadorship, International Religious Freedom, Bureau of 
Democracy, Human, Rights, and Labor, Bureau of International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement, Office of Disability Rights, the 
status of USAID. I want to thank on our side Senator Menendez 
and Shaheen for raising that issue. We have certainly an intent 
that is expressed here that we expect that office to remain at 
the Department of State.
    Embassy security and construction, and Senator Shaheen 
picked up, I think, some very important improvements in that. 
The science and technology fellowships at the State Department. 
Separated families. That may not appear to be an important 
issue that we are dealing with, but if you are part of the 
Foreign Service family, being able to visit family is an 
important issue, and we take care of it in this bill. So, there 
are issues that may not appear to be big, but they are 
important that we are able to move.
    I want to talk a moment about diversity and thank Senator 
Booker for his real leadership on this issue. We introduced 
legislation, the National Security Diversity and Inclusion 
legislation. Senator Menendez, Senator Coons, and Senator 
Shaheen were also very much involved in developing that 
legislation.
    A good part of that is included in this bill, and I just 
urge members of this committee to look at how our State 
Department does not represent America, let alone the universe, 
and we have to do a much better job in recruitment and 
training. And if you read what is included in this bill, we 
have--we have the training. We have the exit interviews. We 
have the commitment for a game plan, the recruitment. It is a 
major step forward with our voices on the diversity within the 
State Department.
    I particularly want to thank the Chairman for including in 
here legislation that Senator Rubio, Merkley, Booker, and 
myself authored combatting global corruption, which deals with 
establishing a process similar, not identical, to the 
Trafficking of Persons, to start to get reports on all 
countries globally and what they are doing to fight corruption. 
But then, more importantly, targeting USAID efforts to deal 
with those corruption, having point persons at every mission 
around the country that have to concentrate on the anti-
corruption, and having a coordinating council. I think we are 
making a major step forward in fighting corruption.
    The bill has shortcomings. I would be the first to 
acknowledge it. There are certainly disappointments that we 
could not do more, and there is certainly uncertainty as to 
what is going to happen within President Trump's and Secretary 
Tillerson's actions. The absence of this committee taking 
action to me would be more challenging for us to have input 
than if we--if we do not take any action at all would be, I 
think, worse.
    So, I just urge us to recognize that this gives us the 
framework to be able not only to do our responsible work in the 
first year of the Trump administration, but to put us on the 
right path to what the role of this committee should do.
    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me just talk quickly on the 
nominations. I am supporting all the nominations, except for 
Mr. Murray and his appointment to the United Nations. His 
offensive comments, to me, are unacceptable, and I will vote 
against his confirmation to be our representative at the United 
Nations.
    And then, one last point, and I think some of you have 
heard me talk about this before, the vacancies within the 
Department. We are going to act today, and we have acted very 
quickly, and I thank the Chairman. I have certainly tried to 
cooperate with him to move nominations through this committee 
as quickly as possible.
    I got a staff del report, which I get from whenever a staff 
member goes on foreign travel, and this staff member went to 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And it ends with this: 
there are lots of problems in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo----
    Voice. It is going to be a long report.
    Senator Cardin  [continuing]. Yeah, there are lots of 
problems there. But the report ends with this comment: ``There 
is no senior director for Africa at the National Security 
Council, no assistant secretary of state for Africa, no USAID 
assistant administrator for Africa, no ambassador to the DRC, 
no special envoy for the Great Lakes.'' Who is there to manage 
the policy? We do not have them in place. There are 129 
positions, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about adding some more 
envoys. There are 129 positions that are subject to the advice 
and consent of the Senate, and 88 of those are totally vacant 
today.
    So, we--this administration has not given us and not given 
the State Department the tools they need to carry out their 
job. And I am pleased that we will confirm some--recommend some 
confirmations today, but let us make it clear. I have heard 
President Trump blame the Senate for not moving his 
appointments. President Trump has not made the nominations.
    The Chairman. We could move the noms and then move to 
comments on the authorization. I will do it in whatever way you 
wish. I see Senator Menendez, Coons, and others. Would that be 
an okay thing to do to move that out? And what I would like to 
do is hold over Mr. Murray. I realize based on the way things 
are that, especially with Senator Rubio not being here, that 
that would be the most productive thing to do.
    So, what I would like to do, I would ask that he be held 
over, and to entertain a motion to approve all nominations 
except his en bloc, including the Honorable David Steele 
Bohigian, the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Honorable 
Luis Arreaga, Mr. Ray Washburne, Ms. Kelley Currie, Ms. 
Callista Gingrich, Mr. Nathan Sales, Mr. George Glass, Mr. Carl 
Risch, Ms. Sharon Day, Mr. Kris Urs, Ms. Kelly Craft, Mr. Woody 
Johnson, and Mr. Lewis Eisenberg.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Any comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    Senator Cardin. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
nominations are agreed to.
    Next, we will move to the State Department Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2018. I know you have made comments. Do 
other members wish to speak to this? Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cardin. Before we start that, do any members want 
to be recorded with a no? Any no votes on those nominations? I 
just want to make sure--I think there may have been some 
members who just want to be recorded no on particular nominees. 
If that is the case, I want to make sure they had the 
opportunity.
    Senator Merkley. Yes. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yeah?
    Senator Merkley. I am having a little trouble tracking 
between my list and your list which were in order.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Merkley. I believe you are holding over Murray.
    The Chairman. Murray, that is correct.
    Senator Merkley. You are holding over someone else? Risch?
    The Chairman. No, we are holding no one else.
    Senator Cardin. No, just that one.
    Senator Merkley. Okay. And I would like to be recorded as a 
no vote on Carl Risch and on Callista Gingrich.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Merkley. And is Lewis Eisenberg also?
    Senator Cardin. Yes.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. I would like to be recorded as a no in 
that case, and also on Kelly Knight Craft.
    The Chairman. So noted. It will be recorded. Anyone else?
    Senator Booker. Yes. I would like to be recorded no on 
Washburne. Murray is being held over. Gingrich, Sales, Risch, 
Craft, and Eisenberg.
    The Chairman. So noted.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Risch is not related to me.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Risch. Maybe that will help you guys get through 
this.
    Senator Booker. I would like to change my vote.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Senator Udall wanted to be----
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. Senator Udall wanted--Senator 
Udall wanted to be recorded as no on Gingrich.
    The Chairman. So noted. So noted.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, now that I know that Mr. 
Risch is not related to the senator, I would like to be 
recorded as a no.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. All those that we have noted, I 
appreciate us being able to move them en bloc. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 
make brief comments. Many of us share concerns about the 
reorganization underway at the State and our lack of 
information about exactly what is going on, what decisions are 
being made, not made, the timing, and the process. And I think 
I join a number of us in having strong feelings that USAID 
should remain an independent agency, but am open to getting 
input on it.
    I am convinced that the best way for this committee to 
express itself and assert its authority is this bill. I think 
restoring a healthy annual oversight and authorization process 
is the path towards relevancy this committee. When my 
predecessor, Joe Biden, chaired this committee, it regularly 
worked out annual authorization bills. We have not had that 
process, with, I think, one exception, in 20 years. And if you 
look at the difference between Armed Services and Foreign 
Relations, we can either do meaningless resolutions or we can 
get back to being a functioning committee.
    Senators Udall and Shaheen have left, and I am about to 
because seven members of this committee are appropriators. Five 
of us serve on the State Foreign Ops Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I think the vehicle for us to assert ourselves on 
this issue is to work together on both authorizing and 
appropriating, because while we may not currently authorize, we 
do appropriate.
    We are not as healthy as we should be in either process, 
but I think this was a good and productive process for this 
bill. I am grateful for Senator Cardin's leadership. A number 
of things I cared about got into this bill early in the 
manager's package. So, I look forward to supporting this bill, 
and I just wanted to express my appreciation to both Senators 
Cardin and Corker for working well together on what is a 
difficult process.
    Many of us are disappointed that there are not more things 
in this bill, but I accept the framework that Senators Cardin 
and Corker have laid out, which is we need to walk before we 
can run. I would like to see numbers in this bill. I would like 
to see more directive language in this bill, but we are not yet 
there. Let us keep moving forward. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the 
opportunity. I hate to be a dissenting voice, but I feel 
compelled to be so.
    I think it is difficult to build out when everything is 
permissive, when there are no numbers assigned so that the 
appropriators could actually do whatever they want at the end 
of the day because we do not even give them a ceiling, and when 
entities like AID cannot be fully protected. So, I do not how 
you assert your authority when everything is permissive at the 
end of the day.
    So, I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman and the 
ranking member in trying to move us forward to regular order, 
but I believe this effort falls short. I appreciate you and 
your staff trying to accommodate some of our requests, but this 
bill does not address funding levels of the Department. It does 
not provide authorizations for foreign assistance to USAID. It 
offers no mandatory Department specific policies or priorities.
    The committee, in my view, in its most basic functions has 
a constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight of the 
Department and provide funding levels, and this bill does not 
accomplish those functions. Saying that the Department should 
do certain things, but, in essence, permitting them to do 
whatever they wish, at the end of the day is not my idea of the 
essence of providing oversight. It is not a separate co-equal 
branch of government acting in a way that ultimately asserts 
its authority, its prerogatives, and, most importantly, its 
vision of what foreign policy should be and the structure that 
foreign policy should be at the State Department.
    And then finally, on something as important as this, and 
the Chairman in just about everything else has been very 
magnanimous. But I must say that we have not even had a hearing 
specifically on this bill. We had one hearing that was a hybrid 
hearing between the deputy secretary at five p.m. on a Monday 
that speaks to the question of reorganization more broadly, and 
that was it.
    And I have yet to receive a response from that hearing from 
the State Department of questions I submitted for the record, 
questions that would have helped me understand whether even 
this permissive reorganization would have been acceptable. I 
asked him questions about personnel, about operations, about 
policy objectives that are crucial to understand. And I really 
do not want to give my imprimatur at the end of the day to a 
reorganization that, as I understand it going on, is not one 
that I could possibly in my wildest imagination support.
    So, all of these shortcomings as leaders of the Department 
and the administration are undertaking what I believe is a 
radical, irresponsible, and ill-defined reorganization that has 
resulted in countless vacancies of critical positions, ceding 
of foreign policy making authority to the Department of 
Defense, and ceding U.S. leadership abroad, is not something 
that I think we right the ship on by virtue of an overall 
permissive authorization.
    So, I am going to try to take two stabs, Mr. Chairman. I 
know you do not like--but I am going to try to take two stabs 
at trying to make this a little bit more of what I think we 
should be doing. One is to just ensure that we actually do not 
permit AID to be folded into State. It has a unique mission. 
Many of you have visited across the world AID missions. It has 
a very unique mission and culture. I think at a minimum we 
should be able to make sure that does not happen. And secondly, 
I think there should be--should be--and shall be departments on 
democracy and human rights. And if we cannot even establish 
that, then I am not quite sure what we are doing.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Menendez. But I have the deepest respect for the 
Chairman and ranking member. I look forwarding to offering 
those amendments.
    The Chairman. If I could, I know other people want to 
speak. I appreciate the comments, and, as you know, I worked 
very closely with you and everyone else on this committee.
    We went from 2002 until I became chairman of this committee 
without passing a State Department authorization bill. 2002 
until I became chairman. So, you know, I hear the criticisms 
about where we are. Sure, it is going to take a few years to 
build to a place where this committee is doing what it is 
supposed to do.
    I would just ask what the hell was happening between 2002 
and when I became chairman of this committee? So, apparently 
the committee decided we did not need to do State Department 
authorizations. They were not important. So, yes, it is going 
to take a few years for us to build to a place where this 
committee exercises its authority in the appropriate way, and, 
yes, it is unsatisfying.
    But I got to tell you, I cannot let that comment stand. We 
had distinguished chairmen of this committee all these years 
that chose not to pursue this? I do not what the member, my 
good friend from New Jersey, was doing all those years, but he 
sure was not passing a State Department authorization. So, I 
say that with all amicability----
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, since you invoked my name, 
I would like to be able to respond.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Menendez. The distinguished chairman changed his 
tune when he became the Chairman. When I wanted to do a State 
Department authorization through NDAA, you told me no. And we 
would have had an opportunity to have a more significant State 
Department authorization attached to NDAA as a vehicle, and you 
did not desire to do that. So, and I was not the Chairman for 
all the years that you espouse from 2002.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Menendez. So, I can only speak for the time that I 
was. I did attempt to have one. I did attempt to work with you 
then as the ranking member, and I did attempt to get it in 
NDAA, and I think it would have been far more robust.
    The Chairman. Well, actually I did, so I will take that 
amendment. There were a lot of years from 2002 and the other, 
and we did end up incorporating that authorization into the one 
that actually passed. But anyway, look, this is unsatisfying, 
but we are making progress to a point in time where we will 
have a full and robust debate on the floor where you and others 
will be directing what is happening on the floor. Yes, sir?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will have to 
depart momentarily for Appropriations, but I did want to ask my 
colleagues to seriously consider Senator Menendez's amendment, 
which I gather you are going to propose, for separating and 
protecting USAID.
    The language in the current law that addresses it 
establishes USAID as an entity, and there has been a difference 
of opinion over whether an entity could be within State 
Department or it could be outside of State Department. I 
believe it is the understanding of the--both the minority and 
majority lawyers who have looked at this and said we think that 
it means that it has to be outside of the State Department. And 
if that is, in fact, the case and the will of this committee, 
then let us just be explicit and clear up this place of 
uncertainty.
    USAID has such a different mission in terms of its 
trajectory, and it is attempting to use it in a diplomatic way 
for short-term gain when it really takes long-term investment. 
So, if indeed, both our majority and minority teams believe 
that this is what the current law means, let us clarify it, and 
let us adopt Senator Menendez's amendment.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Cardin. Would my colleague yield for a moment 
because there is language in the manager's package that 
expresses our intent that it is as you have described it. 
Whether that can be made stronger is something we will look at 
as we move forward, but there is language in the manager's 
package that does move in that direction.
    The Chairman. And USAID cannot be combined into the State 
Department without legislation that causes that to be the case.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference of 
opinion among those who have examined the existing law, and I 
would like to clarify it if we can.
    The Chairman. Okay. I got it. Anybody else like to speak--I 
know that we have amendments that people may wish to speak.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. Just quick to the chair and to all my 
colleagues, I think there are really good arguments on both 
sides of this one. And I think what I would like to do is just 
point out two realities external to this committee that make 
this one hard, because I think the chair and ranking have 
worked together and entertained amendments.
    But the external realities are, one, there are not numbers 
in it because we do not have a budget and we do not have top 
lines. And so, as you know from being a Budget Committee member 
how frustrating that that is for all of us on the Budget 
Committee. So, with no budget, that is a challenge. That is the 
more minor challenge.
    The one that I think is harder for some of us on this side 
is the point that Senator Menendez made, and I just wrote it 
down quickly. I think many of us are worried that a vote here, 
and I heard Senator Coons made the alternate case, but that a 
vote would be an imprimatur to a reorganization I cannot 
possibly support. What I am hearing out of the State 
Department, and some of these State Department folks live in 
Virginia.
    What I am hearing out in the sort of broad community is 
great confusion and anxiety. What is going to happen, they do 
not know. And I do not think this necessarily puts us in the 
role where we are asserting authority over, and I would worry 
about it being an imprimatur over a reorganization that we 
might find very objectionable. It might be that the 
reorganization has not been put on the table and we do not find 
it objectionable. It is just that we really do not know where 
it is going, and we are hearing a lot of anxiety.
    So, I think some of us are kind of struggling. Recognizing 
the hard work has been done, there is sort of a horse and cart 
issue because of that pending issue. So, it is certainly 
without--it is in no way to demean the work and the effort to 
bring people together to say that that separate process that is 
going on at State has caused a lot of anxiety, and none of us--
some of us do not want to look like we are putting our 
thumbprint on a work product when we do not know what the work 
product is.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I heard it. Any other comments? Do 
you want to move to amendments? I thank all of you for still 
being here.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, are we on Senator Menendez's 
amendment?
    The Chairman. No. No, it is getting called up in just a 
moment.
    Senator Murphy. Okay. I have an amendment, but I will offer 
it----
    The Chairman. I will first entertain a motion to consider 
the manager's amendment with Johnson's amendment 2, as amended 
by the Johnson-Gardner second degree and the Shaheen Number 1, 
en bloc by voice vote. Senator Cardin, I heard what many had to 
say about this bill and their amendments, and incorporated many 
of their changes into the original text. We have also agreed to 
include concepts of Merkley 2 with a 60-day waiting period as 
you noticed in the revised manager's package that has been 
moved around.
    I believe your contributions have made this bill stronger. 
I thank you, and I thank Senators Menendez, Shaheen, and 
Merkley, who proposed various ways to demonstrate their concern 
for the independence of USAID. By working with them and their 
staff, we have come up with language that while not 
presupposing any recommendation, makes clear that any change to 
the independence of USAID would need an act of Congress. I 
realize that they may want to speak to that in a different way 
in a moment.
    We have also incorporated the amendments filed by various 
members on our review of the administration's reorganization 
plan. We have included ideas from Senator Booker to demonstrate 
our commitment to the Rangel, Pickering, and Payne fellows, 
Senator Johnson's amendment on Kaspersky.
    Senator Johnson. Kaspersky.
    The Chairman. I will let you pronounce it. I think that 
this process has been transparent and bipartisan. I want to 
thank all of you for engaging with me and my staff and the 
ranking member, and working with us to obtain a joint manager's 
amendment that moves this legislation forward. Do you want to 
speak anymore to that?
    Senator Cardin. I move the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the manager's 
amendment with the Johnson 2 amendment, as amended, and Shaheen 
Number 1 en bloc by voice vote.
    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 
amendments are agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments? My guess is there is. 
Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. I have two amendments, Mr. Chairman. I 
will offer the first one, which is Menendez 2, which is, in 
essence, about AID. And I would just say that I share your 
desire to move forward with the regular authorization process 
for State and for USAID. So, let us use this opportunity to 
actually produce a bill that truly lays out congressional 
directives and oversight, not simply suggest.
    It may be the sense of Congress that USAID is a critical 
component of a comprehensive American foreign policy that 
includes long-term strategic programs that help countries 
develop better governance, institutions, and economic 
development programs that ultimately build resilient countries 
that make the best security and economic partners for the 
United States. But if we do not definitively legislate that 
sentiment, it falls short of ensuring the independence and 
potentially the very existence of that Agency.
    Now, I know many of my colleagues have seen the important 
work of AID, and I have read the language that you are trying 
to use to suggest that we have taken care of that problem. But 
the problem is that all it is is a sense of Congress, not a 
direction. And you cite a section of a different law, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, to say 
that congressional authorization is a prerequisite. I do not 
know why it is a sense of Congress than versus why it is not a 
restatement of the law.
    So, I do not want to, in essence, move forward without 
making it very clear that AID is a separate entity. It existed 
separately under law and needs to be preserved separately under 
law, unless the Congress acts differently. And that is why I 
offer this amendment because I think this is one of the 
critical elements of an authorization bill.
    The Chairman. Thank you for offering it. I understand many 
members have concerns. I do want to say I get no indication 
that that is a direction that they are beginning with. I would 
like to see what they propose. I do believe and know that 
Congress has to act for USAID to be combined into State. That 
is something that takes legislation, and I would prefer to let 
them run their course. There may be some valid reason for that 
discussion to take place.
    So, I think the amendment is premature personally, and I 
would like to see a reorganization process take place where we 
look fully at what we are doing and what our missions are. 
Again, with the Merkley amendment, nothing can happen for 60 
days as part of this package, and then we would have to take 
action legislatively to make that happen. So, I oppose the 
amendment, but I thank you for concerns about USAID.
    Any other comments?
    Senator Young. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I intend to 
support this amendment. You know, I work with Senator Shaheen 
on a--on a task force--I have mentioned it a number of times in 
committee--and there were three findings with respect to 
reorganizing U.S. foreign assistance. CSIS indicated 
recommendation number one was to maintain USAID as an 
independent agency overseeing all new foreign assistance 
efforts.
    If I had some window into the reforms that are ongoing 
within State right now and some security that the homework was 
rigorous and so forth, I would be prepared to wait on that 
report. But that is why I just felt the need to justify why I 
am going to be supportive of Senator Menendez's amendment.
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the legislation?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Young. Second.
    The Chairman. Okay. So moved and seconded. I guess we will 
need a roll call vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    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. Merkley?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. The amendment is adopted.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Johnson. Just for clarification, my second 
amendment on requiring the report on what software is being 
used by the State Department has been moved in the manager's 
package?
    The Chairman. Say again?
    Senator Johnson. My second amendment requiring a report----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. On what--that has been 
included?
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Johnson. Okay. Let me--let me thank the Chairman 
and ranking member for including that, and just briefly say 
this is--I want to thank Senator Gardner for working with me, 
Senator Lankford and Harris for bringing it to my attention, 
proud members of the Intel Committee. They requested a secure 
briefing on Kaspersky Laboratory.
    And this is something we have known about for years. I 
think from my standpoint, the greatest--one of the greatest 
threats to this Nation really is cyberattacks. And there are a 
number of bad actors. There are a number of potential companies 
that we have got to be aware of what they are doing, what 
hardware and software is potentially in our departments.
    And so, this from my standpoint is just a first step at--we 
said this is authorization oversight. We are going to have to 
be rigorous in our oversight of this particular issue with this 
committee with the State Department, but government as well. 
So, again, I just want to thank everybody who participated in 
this, and thank you for including it. It is an important 
amendment. It is an important part of this authorization bill.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for your addition to 
this, and I appreciate our conversation last night.
    Senator Gardner. And I would just add my thanks to Senator 
Johnson for his leadership on this. I think we have a broader 
issue than just the Foreign Relations Committee. You know, last 
year we tried to get the Defense Department to disclose through 
a classified annex critical infrastructure; that is, that they 
have a purchase that they already have installed regarding many 
of these same actors, individuals, and contractors. And that 
was defeated led, in part, by the Department of Defense.
    And so, I think when it comes to our critical 
infrastructure, we have great challenges. This is the first 
step, like Senator Johnson said, that we have got to address 
this, and we have to address our partners overseas. When South 
Korea entertains major telecom contracts with Huawei and others 
where we have a significant troop presence, I think we have got 
to look at what our partner states are doing where we have 
significant troops stationed.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Risch. Senator Rubio and I sit on the Intel 
Committee, and we are supposed to be the liaison between the 
two committees. And in that spirit, I would say as much as I 
can say that there is a lot of stuff going on on this. This 
is--is this on people's radar screen that it should be on. We 
have got along ways to go. I appreciate your efforts. But we 
are going--through the various committees, we are going to 
continue pressing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other amendments? Yes, sir.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Menendez and 
Senator Kaine, while acknowledging that I think the Chairman is 
right that after a long period of lack of authorization, you 
probably do have to walk before you run. And I think for those 
of us that are going to vote no, part of it is based on our 
belief that this is a year where you have to run given the fact 
that there is a major reorganization pending that may end up 
proposing changes that many of us on both sides of the aisle 
object to.
    This would have been our opportunity to make our claim to 
some of the most important capacities in that Department, and 
perhaps guard against some of the more reckless changes that we 
worry about. And there are exceptional things that are 
happening there right now, which give us that worry. There is 
the hiring freeze that initially applied to the entire Federal 
government that now only applies to the State Department. There 
is a ban on many lateral transfers that has tied the hands of 
many agencies and embassies. And so, it gives us worry for what 
is to come next.
    There are a lot of appropriators--I am one of them--on this 
committee, and we feel good that we have a bipartisan consensus 
around fighting back against the deep and harmful cuts that are 
proposed by this administration to their own State Department. 
But one of the things that we could do here to try to guard 
against that risk of imprimatur that Senator Kaine talks about 
is to at least authorize a top number for the State Department 
to make it clear that in authorizing this bill, while we are 
not authorizing the entirety of the Department, we at the very 
least expect that the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriated amount will 
be the authorization level moving forward.
    So, in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment, 
which would set an overall authorizing level at $53.2 billion, 
which is the Fiscal Year 2017 funding levels with OCO built in. 
Those are the approximate numbers that the Appropriations 
Committee is dealing with. And I think it would send a very 
important message in this authorizing bill that this committee 
does not support the 40 percent cuts that have been proposed by 
this administration, and that we will support an Appropriations 
Committee process that that will, at the very least, continue 
2017 levels.
    And so, I would offer that amendment for discussion.
    The Chairman. Well, let us have some discussion.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could. I am going to--I 
thank Senator Murphy. I hope one day we are at this point where 
we will not only be authorizing a top number, but, like the 
Armed Services Committee, we will get more granular as to what 
we authorize as far as spending, and that it will be credible 
and acceptable in the appropriations process as the Armed 
Services recommendations in the National Defense Authorization 
Act is in the defense appropriation bill. The challenge is that 
we got to be much more granular than just one number, and we 
are not prepared to do that at this particular moment, and I 
think Senator Murphy would agree with that.
    The second challenge is that once we have an authorized 
level out there, and let us say it happened to pass and it 
happened to be enacted, what is--we do not have the reputation 
of doing this on an annual basis. And while this might appear 
to be the right number for 2018, if we do not--we have that 
number in law, and we want to do a--if we all want to get a 
different number for 2019, and yet, we cannot get an 
authorization through, it could actually work in a counter 
constructive way.
    We have got to get there, but I would just say we are not 
there yet, and for that reason I would oppose your amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other comments? Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns 
that Senator Murphy has about the reorganization, about the 
budget, and, in particular, the budget that came out, the 
proposed budget. And I think--I think he is right, and I think 
on a bipartisan basis you are going to see a different number 
come out of the appropriations process.
    I just want to make a general statement that this would 
definitely apply to, which is if we are trying to get something 
by UC, which is our only opportunity to get an authorization 
done, this clearly would be a problem because we are not going 
to get unanimous consent for a specific number. And I would 
raise the point that we have a 90-some page authorization bill 
before us, so there is substance in here. It is not everything 
that the Chairman would want or the ranking member would want, 
but I just wanted to go on record saying I am voting no on the 
amendment with the understanding that we are going to try to 
get this thing through by unanimous consent. And then, the 
Chairman has committed to build on this over time so we can 
have a debate and discussion on issues like this one.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other 
comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Would someone move to this amendment if you 
would?
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is it seconded?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. It is my understanding you will accept a 
voice vote. Is that correct?
    It has been moved and seconded.
    All in favor of the Murphy amendment, signify by saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The noes have it. With that, are there other 
amendments?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, this is Menendez 1. It is 
an amendment that I think goes to the core of what really an 
authorization is supposed to be. The bill should serve as a 
guiding document for the State Department, and I would even 
argue it must be a guiding document. And in its current form, 
it seems the State Department shall be able to do whatever it 
pleases with permissive approval from the State Department.
    So, as I have said, there should be a Department that is 
responsible for promoting human rights and democracy. It is 
quite different from saying that there must be one. Saying the 
Department should prioritize good governance and effective rule 
of law reform efforts is also quite different from saying they 
shall. These strategic priorities should not be up for 
discussion. There should be a purpose in promoting and securing 
American foreign policy.
    So, I think at a--while I would want to see a more 
expansive set of ``shalls,'' I think if we cannot do this one, 
then it speaks volumes about what we are doing in 
authorizations. So, I would move the amendment.
    The Chairman. The amendment has been moved. Is it seconded?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. I would just say that, you know, for many 
reasons that we have discussed already, I oppose the amendment. 
I thank you for your concern in this regard. Does anyone else 
wish to speak to this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All in favor----
    Senator Menendez. I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. I would like a recorded vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Chairman. Flake, no by proxy. Go ahead, Gardner.
    Senator Gardner. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Gardner, did you wish to vote?
    Senator Gardner. Am I recorded? I wish to be recorded as 
no.
    The Chairman. Okay. And I'm a no. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner, you are a no?
    Senator Gardner. No. Correct.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11, the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. The amendment passes. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I have Paul Amendment Number 1. Some 
discussion has been made about the concern that the overall 
bill does not have monetary amounts. Some think that maybe we 
will not spend enough. Some of us think maybe we will spend too 
much. But most of us do not know what we will be spending since 
it is not listed.
    Voice. You might speak up a little, Rand. I am sorry.
    Senator Paul. I guess there is some concern about having no 
numbers in the bill by some parts of the committee in saying 
people will spend too little, and some parts of the committee 
might think we spend too much. So, count me as in favor of we 
should authorize dollar amounts. What I have is a specific 
amendment that says we should not use OCO funds for UN dues. It 
does not mean we should not pay UN dues. They should just come 
out of the base budget if we think we should pay UN dues.
    The reason for pointing this out is an overall reason that 
fiscal conservatives have brought up for a long time. And I 
think Republicans actually often are guilty of going against 
their fiscal conservatism by saying, well, we will just the OCO 
funds. Many of us have said, oh, we believe in budget caps. 
Well, we do until we start using OCO funds.
    Since the 70s, starting with the Budget Act, then Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings, then pay as you go, the American people elect 
us and say do something. We pass these reforms on spending, and 
then we ignore our own reforms. We are the ones guilty of this 
$20 trillion debt, and this is not going to cure the debt, but 
it is one step in the right direction that we would actually do 
and obey our own rules.
    We have budget caps. We are going to exceed our budget caps 
by taking OCO funding. We are going to do it in the defense 
bill, and we are going to do it in this bill as well.
    Senator Kaine. Might I----
    The Chairman. Yeah. So, you are calling up Amendment 1, 
Paul Amendment 1?
    Senator Paul. And basically, it says you cannot use OCO 
funds for the UN. You can use money out of your State 
Department budget.
    Senator Kaine. And I just have a question when it is 
appropriate.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. I do not know.
    The Chairman. I tell you what. There is a motion. Is there 
a second for Paul 1?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Second? Okay.
    Senator Barrasso. I want to speak against it, so.
    The Chairman. Go ahead, sir.
    Senator Kaine. I think we use OCO for too many things, and 
I do not think OCO should be used for dues. But I----
    Senator Paul. Well, thanks for supporting my amendment.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. I may well do it. I have not 
read the text. I am sorry to say. I will just be honest.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. An international organization that was 
providing some peacekeeping activity that would crop up, I 
think could be emergency funding. Paying dues is not emergency 
funding.
    Senator Paul. This is planned annual funding.
    Senator Kaine. So, that is the intent.
    Senator Paul. That is all we are doing with the language.
    Senator Kaine. All right.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Cardin. If we had an amendment that said we could 
not use OCO funds, you might have more support--I am just 
letting you know that--for ongoing expenses. You could get 
support. Here, you are picking one----
    Senator Paul. I am happy to amend if you will support it.
    Senator Cardin. We do not have jurisdiction over the 
Department----
    Senator Paul. If you will support it, I am happy to accept 
a second----
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. We do not have jurisdiction 
over the Department of Defense, and that is where most of the 
OCA money is used, and we do not have jurisdiction over that. 
and the Armed Services Committee has, in fact, specifically 
authorized the use of OCO funds for defense purposes.
    Senator Paul. Absolutely wrongheaded.
    Senator Cardin. I understand that, but this amendment would 
basically put us in default in the United Nations.
    Senator Paul. I do not think so.
    Senator Cardin. There is not the appropriated money for it. 
It would put us in default. We would lose our seat. You should 
not pick one appropriation. I am for the State Department 
having permanent funding not through OCO. I agree with you, but 
putting in a restriction as to one appropriation is exactly the 
wrong way to go. And it is for the reason I said to Senator 
Murphy in opposing his amendment when you start dealing with 
specific appropriations when we are not granular on everything 
else. I would hope we would defeat this amendment.
    Senator Paul. If I could just make a quick response.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Paul. I would just say that we all say this, that 
using OCO funds is wrong, on both sides.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Paul. And then we never, ever do anything about it. 
I would accept your approach. If you think it is unfair to 
target one thing, right now I would accept your approach, and 
we could just do it for the State Department. We would be 
leading the way and saying we are actually the only fiscally 
responsible people in the Senate, and we would do it.
    Senator Cardin. In response, what we would do is we would 
take our money, and it would be used for something else.
    Senator Paul. Well, there would still be State Department 
money appropriated. Of the $53 billion that are appropriated, 
they would get their dues out of the $53 billion, not out of an 
extra fund, a slush fund.
    The Chairman. So, I appreciate the point that you are 
trying to make, and I will say that based on meetings I have 
had with Mick Mulvaney, things that they may wish to do this 
year with OCO are incredibly grotesque.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Grotesque, far different than what he 
planned--what he said in his budget hearing. Grotesque. So, I 
thank you for your intent. I think people have a pretty good 
sense how they will vote. Is a voice vote okay?
    Senator Paul. I would like to have a recorded vote because 
I think it is important beyond just the symbolism of this, of 
we are not fiscally conservative on this issue.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. Yes.
    Senator Gardner. I have a question. In your response to 
Senator Kaine's question, you talked about the use of these 
funds for peacekeeping operations. Contributions for 
peacekeeping operations would be--if that language is in here, 
how is that a response to there being----
    Senator Paul. My understanding of the way this would work 
is this is just for the annual dues. This is not for any 
emergency funding.
    Senator Kaine. My reading of it makes me wonder about that. 
The language seems broad.
    Senator Paul. If people want to vote for this and are 
willing to second degree it to remove a word here or there, I 
am happy to take an amendment, a friendly amendment if you 
would like to be recorded in favor of that we should not use 
OCO funds this way. So, I am more than happy to try to make it 
better if somebody wants to vote for it and wants to offer a 
second-degree amendment to it.
    The Chairman. Hearing no revisions, the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the nays are 15, and the yeas are 
six.
    The Chairman. The amendment does not pass, but I truly 
appreciate the sentiment of the gentleman who offered the 
amendment, and I hope as we move along, we will move away from 
OCO funding. It is a grotesque arrangement that we need to 
stop.
    Any other amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let us see. As we close out then, the 
question is on the motion now to approve the State Department 
authorization, as amended.
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. It has been seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the State 
Department Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2018, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The legislation, as 
amended, is agreed to.
    Who would like to be recorded? I think Senator Kaine, 
Senator Menendez, Senator Paul.
    Voice. We have some more.
    Senator Cardin. Murphy, Udall, and Booker would also like 
to be recorded as no.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank all of you for staying this long and 
for participating in the way you have.
    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, the committee is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, 
Paul, Cardin, Menendez, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I thank everybody for being here on our last 
legislative day before recess.
    Senator Cardin. Oh, that is good news.
    The Chairman. Huh?
    Senator Cardin. That is a good way to start.
    The Chairman. We have one semi-contentious nominee that 
takes all Republicans to be here. We told everybody we would 
vote on that point right now over the next two minutes. We are 
still waiting on a couple of Republican members, and I 
apologize for that. We thought they were going to be here on 
the front end.
    As soon as they get here, if it is okay, Ranking Member, we 
will vote on the nominations. We will move away from the 
business we have. I know that Democrats want to register a 
``no'' on Murray in particular, and I appreciate and understand 
that, and thank you all for working with us. So, what I thought 
we would do is go ahead and move to opening comments, which 
will be very brief, move to the Taylor Force Act, and then vote 
on nominations whenever we have all the Republicans present.
    The business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order. We are going to consider S. 1697, 
the Taylor Force Act, and I want to thank Senator Graham for 
the work he has done on this bill and his work to highlight 
such an important issue.
    Taylor, a West Point graduate and veteran of wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, represents the very best our country has to 
offer. He was tragically murdered over a year ago by a 
Palestinian terrorist while in Tel Aviv studying an 
entrepreneurship.
    There is no doubt that his murder and the murder of 
countless others was partly motivated by financial reward. I 
think everyone who is here today fully knows the Palestinian 
Authority has enshrined in law a system that pays Palestinians 
$400 a month if they are sentenced to 2 years in an Israeli 
jail, but $3,500 if they are sentenced to 30 years. These 
payments clearly incentivize terrorism, and I do not think 
anybody has even debated negatively against that.
    At the same time, while we do not give the PA money 
directly, we do pay their debts and fund projects which they 
would otherwise be responsible for. This bill is relatively 
simple. If the PA does not stop the payments and revoke the 
law, then we will stop sending money that directly benefits the 
PA. We cannot continue to send taxpayer dollars, in my opinion, 
to support a government that incentivizes terrorism.
    We will also vote on a number of nominees, as I mentioned, 
when everyone is here. I know that Ranking Member Cardin would 
like to speak to these issues, and I want to thank everybody 
again for being here today.

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

    Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 
First, let me comment on the nominations because I know you are 
going to want to vote as soon as we get the necessary members 
here. I support the three career nominees. One is from the 
State of Maryland, which we are particularly proud of.
    In regards to the nomination of Mr. Jay Patrick Murray of 
Virginia to be the alternative representative to the United 
States of America to the United Nations, I oppose that 
nomination. I want to thank Senator Merkley on our side who 
chaired that nomination hearing. I have concern about Colonel's 
Murray's divisive rhetoric in both his book and his published 
news columns. He has made highly offensive remarks about 
members of Congress, including members of this committee.
    His written statements have been deeply disturbing. In a 
Newsmax article published in March 2016, not too long ago, 
Colonel Murray wrote that Muslims now comprise almost 25 
percent of Brussels' population. Most have not assimilated and 
have no intention of doing so. At worst, they are planning to 
kill their infidel neighbors. At best, they protect and harbor 
those who are doing the killing.''
    Publishing this type of inflammatory rhetoric is not 
befitting of an individual who is seeking to represent the 
United States at the United Nations. In both in my capacity as 
a United States senator and as a special representative on 
Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance for the OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly, I cannot support Colonel Murray's 
nomination.
    Mr. Chairman, in regards to the Taylor Force Act, first I 
want to thank all the members of this committee for expediting 
the consideration of this bill. This is a very important bill, 
and I think our members understand that. And I appreciate the 
cooperation that the chair and ranking member has received so 
that we could take this up without the normal notice 
requirements. And I thank you for that. Our objective--I also 
want to acknowledge, as you do, the tragic loss of Taylor 
Force, an American citizen who was murdered by a terrorist in 
Israel. It was a tragic episode and something that requires our 
action. This is the objective of the legislation: we will not 
tolerate the Palestinian Authority paying prisoners who have 
participated in terrorism or the families of those terrorists 
that have killed innocent people. All that does is beget more 
violence, and we have to have a clear strategy for this 
practice to end.
    The legislation is aimed at doing that in two respects that 
I just want to underscore. First, we want to exercise maximum 
leverage of U.S. assistance to end this policy. Second, we do 
not want to penalize the innocent Palestinian people for which 
our assistance is critically important.
    I want to congratulate and thank the Chairman because the 
changes have been done since the original bill was introduced, 
thanks to the Chairman's hard work with Senator Graham, has 
made this bill a much more effective bill in carrying out those 
two objectives: that is, maximum leverage so the policy can 
change, but recognizing that we do not want to penalize 
innocent Palestinians.
    I want to make a couple of other points. First, no U.S. aid 
today goes to the direct budgetary support for the Palestinian 
Authority. We have already taken steps on that in the past, so 
there is no direct support to the administration of the 
Palestinian Authority. Secondly, we have already cut funds that 
would go to the Palestinian people in the amount of the funds 
that go for these payments that we want to get stopped. But we 
can do more, and this legislation moves in that direction.
    I want to thank my colleagues because I think there are 
amendments that we will consider today that will strengthen 
this bill and the two objectives that I just mentioned, first 
in making it more effective as a tool to bring about change, 
and I want to thank Senator Kaine for his escrow amendment 
because I think that does that. It puts money on the table for 
them to actually change, and they get rewarded. It is a carrot/
stick approach, and I think that is exactly what this bill 
should be doing. And secondly, to protect the humanitarian 
needs of the innocent Palestinian people, particularly as we 
look at ways that we can distribute our aid through NGOs, which 
is what we do currently and which is not affected by this bill, 
but encouraging the funds to go through NGOs so that the 
Palestinians do not lose that humanitarian aid, for 
peacekeeping programs or education and economic progress rather 
than the radicalization of the people. All of that, I think we 
can fine tune this bill to make it more effective in 
accomplishing our objective and to end the practice, and to 
make sure that we participate in peacekeeping efforts with the 
Palestinian people.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Listen, what I would like to do, I 
understand that since we have more Republicans members than 
Democratic members, and since I had told several Republican 
members that it was important just to be here on the front end, 
what I would like to do, with your agreement, is go ahead and 
move to the nominees.
    What I would like to ask is that we move en bloc the 
following nominations--Mr. Raynor, Ms. Brewer, Mr. Desrocher, 
and let us just move them en bloc, if that is okay, and I 
understand you all want a roll call vote on Mr. Murray. And if 
there is a motion to that effect?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank you all for that. And then what I would 
like to do is have a motion that we take up Mr. Murray 
separately and have a roll call vote.
    Senator Cardin. That is fine. I do not know whether Senator 
Merkley wants to make comments or not.
    The Chairman. That's fine. Why do we not make a motion and 
second?
    Senator Rubio. So moved.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Merkley. Second.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Go ahead.
    Senator Merkley. Well, I will just say very simply that I 
encourage people to pay attention to the comments that this 
individual has made in his written work and his articles. They 
are demeaning to members of Congress as a whole. Specific 
members of this committee were attacked. I think the general 
nature--I will not go through the dozen or so most egregious 
comments. I simply think that ponder--we should ponder closely 
whether a person of this extraordinarily divisive nature, prone 
to insulting and demeaning rhetoric, is appropriate in a key 
diplomatic post.
    I believe it is not. I think if these comments were 
directed across the aisle, you all would be telling us that 
this is totally inappropriate for this individual to be 
serving, and I ask sometimes we need to step into each other's 
shoes. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. A roll call vote will begin.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. I want to thank everybody for cooperating and 
disagreeing amicably, and I know some of the people here have 
other business. I thank everyone for being here.
    If we could, what I would like to do now is move to S. 
1697, the Taylor Force Act. I know people want to make comments 
about this piece of legislation. What I would like to consider 
is going ahead and adopting amendments that we know everyone 
agrees with and put those in place, and then begin the 
discussion because I think it will be more relevant to some of 
the amendments that may be offered, if that is acceptable. So, 
I would like to entertain a motion to consider Murphy 1 and 
Murphy 2 amendments, as well as the Young amendment en bloc by 
voice vote. To my understanding, everybody is in agreement with 
that. Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. There has been a motion to approve those 
three amendments en bloc and seconded.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Today is Murphy's birthday, so I am sure he 
will appreciate that, although he is not here to --
    Senator Cardin. If he was here, we would not be voting.
    The Chairman. There you go. So now, look, we have had 
numbers of discussions. I know there was a meeting last night 
with the State Department, I understand, that did not go 
particularly well. But at this moment, I would be glad to 
entertain any discussion or amendments. Look, what I hope is 
going to happen is we are going to finish today with a bill 
that we can have broad support for. I think most of us 
understand what is happening with the Palestinians is 
egregious. To me, it is unbelievably offensive that the leader 
of the Palestinians put this in place, and that we have a 
leader that truly incentivizes, pays people money to inflict 
injury, heinous crimes on other people. That is--to me, it is 
almost a definition of a ``war criminal.'' I am sorry. I am 
pretty worked up about this. It is hard for me to understand 
that this is taking place, but hopefully today we will speak 
with a loud voice towards this. And I would be glad to----
    Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Udall. I believe you are--are we are ready for 
amendments?
    The Chairman. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up my 
amendment. It is a first-degree amendment. And I first would 
like to thank Senator Cardin and Senator Kaine for being co-
sponsors of it.
    Let me just first say that I think the Taylor Force Act has 
very good intentions, and, you know, I do not think that we 
should have U.S. aid money going to terrorists or going to 
terrorist activities. But the other side of this, and I think 
many of us know this in traveling to the West Bank, there are 
very serious problems there. There is poverty. There are a lot 
of checkpoints. There is hopelessness. And so, you kind of have 
the conditions for terrorism on the ground.
    So, what this amendment does is really follow the changes, 
Mr. Chairman, you made earlier, like the exception for the East 
Jerusalem Hospital, and this amendment is in the same spirit as 
allowing an exception under the Taylor Force Act for the East 
Jerusalem Hospital. I would call it a humanitarian exception.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Udall. The exception would allow for funding to 
continue for programs that promote public health, prevent the 
spread of disease or infection. This would include assistance 
to be food, water, medicine, health, sanitation needs, or basic 
human sanitation. The amendment is supported by the Catholic 
relief services, InterAction, an alliance of NGOs which 
includes the American Red Cross, Lutheran World Relief, ONE, 
and others who have endorsed it.
    And I would take it on a voice vote, but I am going to ask 
for a roll call if we do not win on a voice.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. I think the roll call may be 
necessary here. Let me just say that if you add the exception 
for public health water and basic human needs, you basically 
gut the bill. We have the ability through IDA and MRA to 
deliver these services--I know the senator knows that--and just 
really renders this bill basically useless. So, I thank you for 
your concerns as always. I strongly oppose this amendment and 
hope others will join me in not gutting this piece of 
legislation.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cardin. I would like to speak in support of Senator 
Udall's amendment. Let me just try to give the numbers here so 
we know what we are talking about. It is a little bit difficult 
because the Congress does not appropriate by specific use. It 
is the general category of economic support funds. And we know 
the Fiscal Year 2016 numbers. We do not yet know fully the 
Fiscal Year 2017 numbers. So, the last numbers we can really 
work as to what impact this bill has is the Fiscal Year 2016. 
And my understanding, it is $260 million in total that is in 
the economic support funds. Of that $260 million, there is $108 
million that would fall in the category of direct benefit to 
the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian government.
    Of that $108 million, $25 million is for the East Jerusalem 
Hospital, which we have carved out specifically as an exception 
in the bill. So it has already been carved out. Therefore, we 
are talking about $63 million that goes directly to the 
benefits and $45 million that goes to U.S. debt payment, which 
we all recognize would be cut off by these bills. There is no 
effort made to say that that could be continued unless the 
Palestinians cut off funding for prisoners.
    So, we are really talking about the $63 million that in 
Fiscal Year 2017 went to programs similar to what Senator Udall 
is talking about. Not all of that went there, but some of that 
money went there. So, there is going to be money cut off. It 
does gut the bill. The question is for those types of programs 
that deal with health, and clean water, and sanitation, and 
education, the type of programs that Senator Udall is talking 
about, those funds are important to prevent radicalization. It 
is important for the peace between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians, and we expect that you will see a larger sum of 
those monies going through NGOs. But the NGO funds or municipal 
government funds would be able to continue because they do not 
go directly to benefit the Palestinians.
    So, all I am suggesting here is that what Senator Udall is 
saying, if the money is going to help the Palestinians, yes, 
there are ways within this bill that they continue through 
NGOs. That is acceptable. But there may be circumstances where 
the Secretary of State believes it is best in the money going 
through the mechanisms that he currently has, which is a more 
specific program. I think this legislation is as clear as can 
be that we do not want the Palestinian Authority to get any 
benefits from U.S. assistance unless they end this policy. And 
we know there is going to be a price to pay, at least the fuel 
monies, if not a lot more than that. And the aid may be 
configured in a totally different way, and that can be done. 
But I do think the message is clear and the Udall amendment 
makes it clear to the Palestinian people that we are not aiming 
at the programs that directly benefit the Palestinian people. 
So, I support the amendment.
    The Chairman. Let me just say, all of us are fully 
cognizant of the fact that the Palestinian Authority uses these 
monies - or flow through them--to build support for themselves. 
The State Department knows full well that if they want these 
resources flowing to the Palestinian people, they can do it 
through reprogramming to NGOs so that we are not, again, 
propping up the Palestinian Authority's ability to have 
dominion over people when they, in fact, are paying people to 
kill Israelis and other innocent people. They are paying people 
to do that. So, I strongly oppose this. I would love to hear 
any other comments people may have. Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I agree with 
the overall spirit of the legislation that both of you talked 
about, which is to maximize and leverage, but also to ensure 
that some of these humanitarian funds continue to flow. And I 
think Senator Udall's amendment is well intended in that 
regard. But to add to what Senator Cardin said, I think the 
number is $105 million that goes--40 percent of the ESF funding 
that goes to NGOs. So, because when I first looked at this, I 
thought we were talking about, one, something bigger than ESF, 
we were just talking about ESF. And second, 40 percent of it 
goes already outside of the PLA to NGOs, primarily for 
humanitarian type projects, including infrastructure, health, 
education, and so on.
    So, I think this bill is a pretty good balance where 
Senator Corker and Senator Graham have it. It is a--some 
significant changes from Senator Graham's original bill 
actually thanks to some of the compromises he was willing to 
make and some of the things you were able to negotiate. So, I 
think it has got the right balance, and so I am going to be 
opposing that amendment, again, understanding that I think the 
bill, in effect, does this by having 40 percent of the funding 
continue to go through NGOs. And as the Chairman says, the 
State Department would have the ability to reprogram.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I assume you would like a roll call vote.
    Senator Merkley. Well, I would.
    The Chairman. We can defeat it by a voice vote or have a--
--
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes are 11; the yeas are 10.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. The amendment is not adopted.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, if I could call Kaine Amendment 
2. I have--I have two amendments pending. Number one deals with 
how we define what the presentation of the underlying laws that 
generate the payments are. I am not going to call that one up 
now. If Kaine 2 passes, I am going to drop 1. Kaine 2 is geared 
at what are we trying to do get at here, and I view this as a 
friendly amendment. I think the activity is outrageous, and we 
are trying to grapple with it. And I think the hearing that we 
had with our two witnesses about it helped me crystalize this 
idea. Is our main goal to punish bad behavior, or is it to end 
the bad behavior? And I would hope it would be--I think we have 
to try to end the bad behavior.
    My worry about the drafting of the bill as is is 
withholding the money, I think a message that will be sent to 
many on the Palestinian side is that money is never coming 
back. They know that many here--all of us are opposed to the 
behavior, but I think also some of them are very skeptical 
about whether there really is support for the PA at all. And 
they also recognize that there is a significant attack on all 
foreign aid in the foreign aid budget. And so, if the money is 
just withheld, I worry that a message they take from that is 
the money is not coming back, and then there is no incentive--
no strong incentive to improve the behavior.
    So, if what we want to do is to improve the behavior, one 
of our witnesses at the hearing suggested why not consider an 
escrow account. So, what Kaine Amendment 2 would do is instead 
of just withholding the money, it would take the money sort of 
for a two-year period. We would put the money in an escrow 
account, and the monies could be released from the escrow 
account if the Secretary of State determines that the payments 
have stopped.
    They do not have to be released from the escrow account. It 
gives the Secretary of State the ability to release and may if 
the payments have stopped, and I think that actually creates 
the incentive to end the behavior. And it also gives the 
Secretary of State, and I say God love the administration for 
trying for what seems impossible, which is having a dialogue 
with Israel and Palestine about cessation of violence and 
negotiation. Moving forward, I think it gives the Secretary of 
State a bit of leverage, the two-year accumulation of these 
funds, that could potentially be used in a productive way in 
discussions.
    So, the behavior is outrageous. We ought to try to stop it. 
I think we are more--in a targeted way, we are more likely to 
stop it if we use an escrow mechanism than just withholding the 
funds. And so, that is the--that is the purpose of this. And if 
at the end of the two years they have not done what they need 
to do, the money is reprogrammed for other purposes, but it--
but it would continue then to accumulate in two-year segments 
as an--as an ongoing incentive for the folks to change their 
behavior.
    The Chairman. If I could speak to the amendment. I had a 
conversation with Senator Kaine prior to the meeting, and I 
appreciated that. And in the spirit of what Senator Portman 
just outlined, and that is trying to seek a balance that is 
appropriate and draw enough support to actually pass a piece of 
legislation.
    As I understand your proposal, Senator Kaine, is you would 
drop the other amendment you have relative to causing them only 
to have taken steps.
    Senator Kaine. Right. If my first--if my first degree 
passes.
    The Chairman. And if your first degree passes improved by 
Corker second degree, then, in fact, that would alleviate your 
concerns. Is that----
    Senator Kaine. If the second-degree passes, I think I may 
still want to offer Kaine Amendment 1. So, my--if Kaine 
Amendment 2 passes without modification, I will drop my 
Amendment 1. If it--if the Corker second-degree amendment to 
mine passes, I will probably still offer Kaine Amendment 1.
    The Chairman. A little different understanding than I 
thought. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. I just want to speak in support of this 
amendment. I think it focuses and sharpens the bill, and 
provides a more credible mechanism to encourage and incentivize 
a change away from this despicable practice by the Palestinian 
Authority.
    Senator Young. Can I just--I am inclined not to be 
supportive, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness. I certainly 
like the psychology of this amendment, at least the psychology 
from the standpoint of the Palestinian Authority. But there are 
two components to this Taylor Force Act. One is concrete and 
substantive. We pull away funds for bad behavior. The other is 
expressing its message. And I have concerns that this 
undermines the strong message we are trying to send. It is 
nuanced, right, and nuance is lost sometimes in international 
affairs. So, this is the same, frankly, concern I was going to 
articulate when we got to Merkley. And so, maybe you could 
speak to that. It is a threshold issue for me, and I do not 
think you are going to get me there, but I want to give you an 
opportunity.
    The Chairman. Let me--before he does that----
    Senator Young. Yeah.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this for discussion.
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    The Chairman. The second-degree amendment that we have 
takes that escrow--a two-year escrow and makes it a one-year 
escrow. It also reinserts the strong language that says they 
have to revoke the law. I think we know this was in place by 
presidential decree.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    The Chairman. I mean, President Abbas just did this, okay? 
He is, what, 10 or 12 years into a 5-year term, and basically--
he is ruling by decree, in essence.
    Senator Kaine. Right.
    The Chairman. So, I would love to see what the response 
would be among members on both sides relative to considering 
the thrust that Kaine is looking at, but not giving near that 
much time, or whether members, particularly on the Republican 
side, feel like that that just continues to erode this bill in 
such a manner that makes it ineffective.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just----
    Senator Kaine. It may be the latter.
    Senator Cardin. Could I just respond before we get into 
that because I think Senator Kaine's amendment makes the bill a 
stronger bill, and let me explain why. Under the current 
configuration as the Chairman has explained, funds could be--
``reprogrammed'' may not be the legal term, but can be 
reprogrammed through NGOs, which is what we all understand. 
Under the Kaine approach, the money is put into a lockbox and 
cannot be released unless the law is changed. So, it is 
actually a stronger provision, but offers the real carrot out 
there that we thought could bring about a change, because we 
know the Palestinians' needs for resources. So, it actually 
makes the bill stronger.
    Senator Young. I understand how you are characterizing it. 
I mean, my only concern is that, just to be a little more 
specific here, I am not sure if it would be perceived as 
stronger. My concern that I want to give the good senator from 
Virginia an opportunity to respond to, is that there will be a 
perception that the money has not really been cut, right, so.
    Senator Cardin. It cannot be spent.
    Senator Kaine. So, just, I mean, I have talked to interest 
groups who strongly support the Taylor Force bill about this.
    Senator Young. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. And they like the escrow, and a couple have 
said to me I am not so sure, you know. Does that send the right 
message?
    Senator Young. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. But when I walked through the reason, they 
actually said, oh, I actually kind of like it. So, this is not 
a scientific sample. This is, you know, the four or five groups 
that I have chatted with about it. Even the ones who had some 
initial concern, as I walked through the reason, they said, 
okay, I see what you are doing.
    And, you know, to give an additional tool to the Secretary 
of State, which my escrow account does to, okay, I am involved 
in these very tough discussions that they are trying to have 
with Israel and Palestine right now. If you stop the payments, 
I have the ability to release. So, it is not a national 
security waiver. It is an escrow release mechanism, but it 
gives the Secretary of State the ability to do it.
    And I think that that is--and I understand one of the 
reasons that the staff briefing was not so good yesterday is 
the administration really did not kind of tell us what their 
position is. But to give the administration a tool, whether it 
is one year or two years. I like two years better, but it is 
not the one year or two years that really matters to me about 
the escrow account, but to give them a tool so that the 
Palestinians know the money is there if the behavior improves, 
and the Secretary of State has the ability to utilize that in 
these tough discussions.
    As I have explained it to people who have raised questions 
about, well, what is the message, they seem to be oh okay, 
well, I get it.
    Senator Young. I think I will be opposing just to let you 
know, and only because it requires that explanation, right, 
that you had the opportunity to privately discuss with others, 
and I am just afraid that nuance will be lost. But I may 
critically reassess this in the future, and this may be a good 
model for us.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. First of all, I completely agree with your 
premise that what we should be trying to do here is not punish, 
but actually end the practice, so I am intrigued by your 
concept. I would rather have it be 2 years. I would rather not 
spend the money to put it in escrow. I would be willing to 
accrue it for a year. And then I am not particularly trusting 
of just a Secretary of State determination. I would like to 
have Congress make that determination.
    So, if you would just accrue the money for one year, and it 
involved Congress, so we actually make the determination in 
consultation with the administration so we know it is rock 
solid that this thing has ended, I think--I think it is a 
pretty good concept.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Paul. Quick question.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Paul. If you do not have this fund, the money that 
is being taken away from the Palestinian Authority can be 
reprogrammed to the NGOs? Is that what we are saying? So, this 
would be something that would lessen that ability to give it to 
the NGOs, right?
    The Chairman. That is correct actually. At least that--
based on the way you posed the question, I think that would be 
true. If you are escrowing the money that is going to the PA, 
then, yes, that would lessen your ability during that period of 
time to reprogram --
    Senator Paul. The Secretary of State has the ability to 
reprogram. That is what you all are saying, right?
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Senator Paul. Which may be for some of us the way we would 
rather the money be spent in the first place.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Yeah. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I clearly support the 
underlying essence of Taylor Force, and I think it is abhorrent 
practice whether it is happening by the Palestinian Authority 
or any other place in the world in the 21st century. And so, I 
am ultimately going to support that.
    But I think Senator Kaine's amendment makes this a far more 
compelling effort to achieve the goal. To achieve the goal. And 
our goal is to change the Palestinian Authority leadership's 
position, both in law and in practice, at the end of the day, 
not to punish the Palestinian people. Because if what we are 
trying to do is to punish the Palestinian people, then I am not 
there, and I take a back seat to no one in terms of my support 
for the State of Israel.
    So, I think that Senator Kaine achieves that goal and 
strengthens it, because it sends a very clear message. You have 
lost the money unless you change your practice in fact and you 
change the law. If, in fact, you do not do that, then you do 
not get the money, and the people of Palestine can look to you 
as to why they are suffering because you have been unwilling to 
change the law and the practice. And, therefore, we look to you 
as the reason why we are being hurt, not to the United States 
of America.
    And so, I think it is actually a more compelling effort. It 
is something that I had suggested to Senator Graham early when 
we were having discussions, and I strongly support either the 
version that you have as is. I can see Senator Johnson's view, 
and I am happy to support that as well. It might be a way to 
get a bipartisan effort. And I strongly believe that this is 
the right way to go.
    The Chairman. If I could, I do not think you were here when 
Senator Cardin made his opening comments. I concur a hundred 
percent with what he said. The purpose here certainly is not to 
punish the Palestinian people. It is to punish a government, a 
government, just like with Russia. We are trying to punish the 
government, not the people of Russia. But we are trying to 
punish a government that is paying people to kill other people. 
So, I concur a hundred percent with those portions of your 
comments.
    If I could before Senator Portman speaks, first of all, our 
staff believes that the State Department could actually be 
reprogramming the money, so I want to correct the record there. 
They could be reprogramming it in that 2-year period, okay? So, 
I want to--and, Johnson, if I could, just to get clarity, what 
is it you are saying that you believe would be an improvement 
over the Kaine amendment?
    Senator Johnson. Well, I would certainly agree the 
shortened time period puts more pressure on them because we 
want to end--we want to end it. You know, rather than actually 
spend the funds and put them in an escrow account, I would just 
accrue it, and this is available to you if you end the 
practice. And I would want to have more than the Secretary of 
State declaring whether the practice has been ended. We have 
seen in the past where that--you know, those declarations could 
be a little loosey-goosey. I would like Congress' involvement 
in some way, shape, or form, whether this committee has to pass 
a resolution which passes the Senate saying, no, we do confirm 
the fact that these practices have been ended, and we will 
expend the funds.
    The Chairman. Well, I will say on that note, and I will 
move to Senator Portman. The Corker second degree, which was 
done to try to improve this legislation, makes it real clear 
they have to amend it and they have to revoke the law. So, that 
would not need to have any congressional input. We would have 
revoked the law and stopped the payments. So, maybe that would 
accommodate the senator's concerns.
    Senator Johnson. Okay.
    The Chairman. Does anybody--go ahead, Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. That is exactly--that is exactly what I 
was going to ask you about, if you could explain the second 
degree, because my understanding is it makes the amendment 
offered by Senator Kaine consistent with the underlying bill--
--
    The Chairman. That's correct.
    Senator Portman. And specifically on the revocation.
    Senator Johnson. Okay.
    Senator Portman. Because I think Senator Johnson raises a 
good point. That is exactly what I was going to ask you to do 
is explain the second degree.
    The Chairman. So, with the----
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, let me 
make sure we--everyone understands the state of play in regards 
to reprogramming because I think your clarification is 
absolutely accurate. The money in the bill that we have now 
before us, as I understand it, assuming the Palestinians do not 
end the practice, these funds cannot be spent, even for 
humanitarian purposes, if it is under the auspices of the 
Palestinian Authority, so because it directly benefits the 
Palestinians, the government.
    If prior to the end of the Fiscal Year the administration 
were to use those funds through an NGO or municipality, that 
would be permitted under the bill that we have before us. There 
are funds that go directly through NGOs that are used for this 
purpose. Under the--under the original bill, if the money is 
not spent by the end of the year, they cannot spend it, it 
reverts back to the State Department. Those funds can be 
reprogrammed.
    Admittedly, there are notifications to Congress, et cetera, 
but those funds could be reprogrammed, could end up going to 
help the Palestinians. Could be. Under the Kaine amendment, and 
the reason I say it is tougher, if they are not reprogrammed by 
the end of the Fiscal Year, the funds must go into the lockbox 
and then cannot be spent unless the law is changed. So, the 
Kaine bill gives us a stronger club to get the change in 
behavior. That is the reason that I was pointing that out.
    The Chairman. So, in listening to the discussion, in order 
to move this along, I think the Corker second degree does make 
the Kaine first degree much stronger, and much clearer, and 
much more consistent with the law that we have here before us 
and the intent of this law. So, for that reason I am going to 
offer the Corker second degree. I hope it will be seconded. I 
will be glad to have any discussion, and hopefully we will have 
a vote.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Kaine. This might short circuit it procedurally a 
little bit. Would you--I would drop my first degree if you 
would change your second degree to 2 years rather than 1. Well, 
I guess I got to keep my first degree to have a second degree. 
But your second degree with 2 years rather than 1. I could 
support that. I may still----
    The Chairman. You mean with 1 year--you mean with 2 years 
versus 1.
    Senator Kaine. As your draft, I would support that. I would 
still like to make then my argument about Kaine Amendment 
Number 1 and how we can define ``notification,'' and we could 
go up or down.
    The Chairman. I appreciate it, but I think, you know, we 
have had multiple discussions about this, and I think I will 
just leave it like it is and let it lay however the vote comes 
out. Is the Corker second degree seconded?
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. Anymore discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Would you like a roll call vote?
    Senator Cardin. It is the second degree.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah. Yeah.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. This is on Corker second?
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    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?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the noes are 9.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The amendment carries. I would 
prefer the base bill be as it was. I think the arguments that 
have been made by Senator Kaine certainly have caused some 
members of our committee on both sides of the aisle to reflect 
upon it. And for that reason, I will be supporting the Kaine 
amendment as amended by the Corker amendment in order to create 
comity, and also to try to accommodate the concerns of members 
of the committee that we try to incentivize behavior over this 
next year before the funds are fully known to be gone. And for 
that reason I will support it. I do not know if there any other 
comments that members would like to make.
    Senator Kaine. I also would--I would have preferred mine, 
but with this one, I support it, and I will make a brief 
argument about Kaine Amendment 1 after the vote.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Cardin. Voice vote?
    The Chairman. Is a voice vote acceptable?
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    The Chairman. All in favor of the Kaine amendment amended 
by the Corker amendment, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. It carries the day. Thank you so much. 
Hopefully there are no other amendments.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. By the way, happy birthday. We did your 
business while you were gone.
    Senator Murphy. I appreciate it.
    Senator Cardin. You got your amendments done quickly.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I do have another amendment. 
And essentially what this boils down to is that the economic 
circumstances in Gaza and the West Bank are, quite frankly, 
extraordinarily difficult. Unemployment is very high, and much 
of the infrastructure is shattered. You can take that and take 
it to another order of magnitude in Gaza where there are, I 
think, conditions you might describe as desperate just in terms 
of the fundamental access to any medical care or to clean 
water.
    What my amendment says is that the funds that are removed 
from the PA basket will be put into the NGO basket so that the 
humanitarian role continues. Now, the way this would interact 
with the amendment just adopted, as I understand it, is that 
the electric funds, the $45 million that would continue to go 
into the escrow account side, but that the funds, the $85 
million, that go through the PA and go through a variety of 
humanitarian purposes would be put into the third basket, which 
is the NGO basket.
    A number of my colleagues have said we do not want to 
punish the Palestinian people. This does reinforce the notion 
of an unambiguous message to the PA by taking the funds away 
from the PA, but also does not punish the Palestinian people by 
redirecting it to NGOs under very extraordinarily difficult 
circumstances. That summarizes it, I think, sufficiently.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I oppose the amendment. I do think 
we obviously acknowledge that permissively, the State 
Department, should they see fit, have the ability where 
appropriate for reprogramming. But to make that mandatory to me 
is an inappropriate step, and we can address what it is what we 
are trying to do here. But I would entertain any other 
comments.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for, just in 
terms of a clarification, I believe because of the amendment we 
just adopted, the State Department would not any longer have 
the ability to redirect those funds to the humanitarian basket.
    Senator Cardin. They can do it prior to the end of the 
year.
    The Chairman. I do not think there is any--I think staffs 
on both of the aisle did not believe that to be true.
    Senator Merkley. In that case, the direct impact of this 
would be to tell the State Department to make that redirection 
so that the NGO support continues.
    The Chairman. Would you like a roll call vote?
    Senator Merkley. Yes, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Cardin. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes are 11; the yeas are 10.
    The Chairman. The amendment fails. Are there any other 
amendments?
    Senator Kaine. Quickly, Mr. Chair, Kaine Amendment 1. So, 
this is an amendment that, again, I consider it friendly, and I 
think it is a little controversial. But it is trying to 
maximize the effect on behavior rather than just set an 
insuperable bar that they will not be able climb. So, right now 
if you look at the base bill, Section 4 says they have to do 
four things, they have to--PA. They have to take credible steps 
to end acts of violence against Israeli citizens and U.S. 
citizens. They have to terminate payments for the actual 
terrorism. They have to revoke any law, decree, or regulation. 
And then there was a fourth that was added by Senator Young's 
amendment that came in, condemn violence and help in the 
investigation actions. So, that is what the base bill is now.
    My Amendment 1 deals with this issue of the revocation. 
This was in discussions with the State Department. If you 
require that they have revoked any law, decree, regulation, or 
document pertaining or implementing the system of compensation, 
obviously they are going to have to stop all the payments. I 
worry about the fractious nature of their legal system, with 
Hamas and others being part of it, whether it is a bridge too 
far to stay stop payments and actually revoke all the laws, you 
know. We have a hard time passing laws. The Knesset has a hard 
time passing laws. I suspect the PA has a very difficult time.
    So, I would not want to punish them if they have actually 
stopped the payments, and they are condemning violence, and 
they are involved in investigations, and they are doing all the 
other things. So, what I have proposed is a slight amendment to 
Section 3 to just say that they should have initiated a process 
to revoke it. If they stop the payments, and they are 
condemning violence, and they are doing the investigations, and 
they have initiated the process to revoke, I think that should 
be enough knowing how challenging the politics of the situation 
is.
    So, it is a fairly narrow little amendment just in that 
provision, but I think makes a little more realistic. And I 
worry that the outright complete revocation is such a high 
hurdle, that they will just never be able to get over it, and 
then we do not have any incentive of changing behavior. So, 
that is it.
    The Chairman. I appreciate, again, the good faith that we 
have all displayed here, and I talked to you a little bit about 
this in advance. Again, this law was put in place by 
presidential decree, which is how they are governing themselves 
now. I do not think this is a hurdle that is too high to 
overcome. I oppose the amendment, but certainly look forward to 
any other input people may have. Again, I just think we are 
getting to a place where we are beginning to speak in an 
unclear way. And I do think that he obviously has the ability 
by himself by decree to make much happen. If 9 months from now 
we feel like there are issues, we ourselves may wish to deal 
with it in another way. I oppose the amendment. Any other 
discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Would you like a roll call vote?
    Senator Kaine. A voice vote is okay.
    The Chairman. Okay. All in favor of the Kaine amendment, 
say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. I think the amendment does not carry. With 
that--yes, sir?
    Senator Booker. I would like to, first of all, withdraw all 
my amendments except for one. I just would like to speak for a 
moment on one that I am withdrawing, which is Booker Amendment 
Number 1. Having been over, as most of us have, into the West 
Bank to see their incredible work on creating the Palestinian 
high-tech sector, which is a non-ideological, really pragmatic 
way to create change, our investments in the same way that we 
do the Israeli tech sector would be a great idea and something 
I will--I will work on later. But maybe this is just sort of my 
concern on the one that I do not want to pull back. It is 
Booker Amendment Number 2. I understand there is a lot of 
resistance around the national security waiver in Section 4, 
but I worry that if we--if we do not include a national 
security waiver in Section 5 as I read it and the Secretary of 
State is not able to make the certification, that we actually 
are talking about zeroing out all humanitarian funding, even 
the funding that was--that my colleagues have told me that we 
would like to see reprogrammed into direct support.
    And so, this is my concern. Yesterday in the staff 
meeting--the staff reading, the Secretary--the State staff said 
that they could not answer if the Secretary would be able to 
make that certification every 180 days. The bill language is 
very clear. Every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State 
certifies in writing to the appropriate congressional meetings 
that the Palestinian Authority is taking credible and 
verifiable steps to end acts of violence against Israeli 
citizens and United States citizens that are perpetuated by 
individuals.
    Now, I share the consensus--bipartisan consensus here about 
the payments that are being made. The heinous terrorist acts, I 
condemn that, and it is awful, but I am not sure if this is 
really our intention. If the Secretary of State fails to make 
this certification every 180 days, it is my reading of this 
that we will see all--even direct payments to some of the 
humanitarian efforts that we have all thought, or at least 
expressed, that would continue to happen would end. So, correct 
me if I am wrong, but if not, I would like to offer my 
amendment.
    The Chairman. You are welcome to call it up. I oppose the 
amendment. And I think, you know, Congress has spoken, in 
particular, to national security waivers. That is the way this 
bill began. We just put congressional review in the Russia 
bill, and we have moved away from national security waivers of 
this type. So, look, if they cannot demonstrate that they have 
taken any steps whatsoever to end terrorist activities, it 
seems to me that we have got a significant problem. Yes, sir?
    Senator Cardin. I just want to review the state of play so 
people understand this because obviously there is uncertainty 
as to how this administration will handle certain policies 
globally, including the policies in Israel and with the 
Palestinians. As part of the annual appropriation process, 
there is a certification requirement for the release of funds. 
So, this is not inconsistent, I would say, with what the 
Appropriations Committee has done in the past. So, I just 
really want to point that out. But I think Senator Booker's 
concerns are legitimate concerns regarding, not getting a clear 
statement from this administration as to what their policies 
will be in regards to the Palestinians.
    Senator Booker. And it is very troubling. I do not--I 
actually do not need a vote because I can see clearly how that 
would end.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Booker. But I just want to express my concern.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that very much. Are there any 
other amendments?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Merkley. I do not have an amendment. I just want to 
comment on Senator Booker's position. As I understand it, I 
thought that for the previous discussion, folks were supporting 
the current basket number three--that is, the funds that are 
directed through the ESF to--through nonprofits, and that we 
were talking about wanting to stop the funds that go to the 
Palestinian Authority organizations, to send a message to the 
Palestinian Authority.
    But my team also from this staff meeting yesterday, which 
was extremely--the State Department was very unprepared, seemed 
to indicate that as written, this bill would, in fact, cut off 
the funds to the nonprofits as well. And that is the concern I 
believe my colleague is raising.
    Senator Booker. A hundred percent.
    Senator Merkley. And if we do want to have this bill be a 
direct attack on the
    Palestinian people who are already under difficult 
circumstances, I think we need to--we need to fix this. And I 
know my colleague has withdrawn his amendment, but I feel, 
unless I am misunderstanding the conversation, that we are on 
the verge of ending up with a product that is different than we 
thought. And, again, this was a very confusing staff meeting, 
but that was what the State Department seemed to indicate.
    The Chairman. Yeah. I think Senator Cardin----
    Senator Booker. And that--let me just add, it was hard to 
determine, but that is what I am seeing. I am hearing language 
saying on the--on the record one thing, but clearly the print 
of the bill is indicating it is going to go a different way, 
especially if the State Department is not willing to do that.
    The Chairman. I think Senator Cardin's comments cleared 
that up, and I agree with those. With that, any additional 
amendments?
    Senator  Murphy. I do not--I do not have an amendment, but, 
I am sorry, I was not here for the opening comments. I know 
there have been a number of people discussing this clause about 
restricting money that directly benefits the Palestinian 
Authority. I just want to put it on the record before we go to 
a vote here that there is going to be a myriad of 
interpretations as to what that means. And that does not in 
many of our minds mean that any ancillary benefit to the 
Palestinian Authority that they may get by virtue of a grant 
made to an NGO deems that they are.
    Now, other people may read that differently, but I just 
want to reserve for potentially future administrations the 
ability to read that as money going directly to the Palestinian 
Authority and not have to come up with an argument that there 
is zero benefit, even a political benefit.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that comment. Without 
further ado, and seeing no more hands raised, I would like to 
have a vote on the bill, as amended.
    And I assume we want a roll call vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. And seconded?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. The clerk will 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?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. She's still on our side.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 17; the noes are 4.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The bill is passed. Yes, sir, additional 
comments?
    Senator Menendez. I just--I just want to have you recognize 
that it was Democrats who gave you a quorum here.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you so much for saying that. The 
amendment is agreed to. The legislation is agreed to. That 
completes our business. I ask unanimous consent that staff be 
authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Without 
objection, so ordered. I thank all of you very, very much for 
being with us. Have a great recess. We are adjourned.
    Senator Cardin. Good work. That was good work.
    [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and Booker.

             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. We have a number of 
items on the agenda today, including three pieces of 
legislation and multiple nominations.
    We have H.R. 390, the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency 
Relief and Accountability Act of 2017. This bill is a priority 
for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and we are glad to 
work with them in that regard. It seeks to ensure that adequate 
assistance reaches minority communities in Iraq who suffer acts 
of genocide at the hands of ISIS. In particular, there is 
concern that communities who wish to relocate their homes to 
Nineveh province and elsewhere receive appropriate support.
    Moving this bill is also an opportunity for us to enact 
this committee's work on Senator Cardin's Syrian War Crimes 
Accountability Act. We also thank Senator Shaheen for her work 
on the Syria Study Group, which we are incorporating into H.R. 
390.
    We will consider the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2017. The Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 2000 was where we as a country and the world came to 
grips with the terrible reality of modern slavery.
    This committee has conducted serious oversight of the State 
Department's implementation of the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Act. The 2015 TIP Report was a turning point. We 
came together in a united way to let the State Department know 
that we and they must take the integrity of the report and its 
tier rankings seriously.
    I want to thank Senator Cardin for his leadership. No 
doubt, your consistency and passion is clear and remarkable, 
and I thank you for that. We also thank you for the provisions 
on the child soldiers, recruiting fees, and reporting and 
strategy requirements.
    Senator Menendez and Senator Rubio have exercised real 
leadership here also in our oversight efforts and contributed 
substantially to this bill.
    The reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act allows us to reinforce our oversight in statute. It 
strengthens the integrity of the tier ranking system in a 
constructive way.
    We are also breaking new ground in requiring the State 
Department's regional bureau Assistant Secretaries to work 
collaboratively with the tip Ambassador and with embassies in 
countries where tier rankings are elevated from Tier 3 to Tier 
2 watch list to prepare an action plan to get such countries on 
the path to Tier 2.
    The bill authorizes the full 7 years for the End Modern 
Slavery Initiative we approved in this committee. We worked 
with the Appropriations Committee to authorize appropriations 
at current levels for the duration of the bill. It is important 
that we take every opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities 
to authorize appropriations.
    We will also consider S. Res. 168, a resolution supporting 
respect for human rights and encouraging inclusive governance 
in Ethiopia. The United States has an important and ongoing 
relationship with the Government of Ethiopia, and we cooperate 
with them on areas of mutual interest, including regional 
stability, counterterrorism, and economic resilience in 
drought-prone and food-insecure regions. Nonetheless, it is 
reasonable to raise legitimate concerns with our allies in 
private, which we have for many years, but to do so more 
publicly when that fails.
    There is great potential for Ethiopia, as well as great 
risk to this important regional partner and to our own 
interests. This bipartisan resolution properly calls on our 
friend Ethiopia to address longstanding tensions with the 
majority of Ethiopians through transparent justice and 
necessary political reforms.
    I thank Senator Cardin and others on the committee for 
bringing up this resolution.
    We will also vote on a number of nominees today. I thank my 
colleagues for allowing the committee to take these steps 
forward today. I will read their names later.
    Are there any other member comments? Senator Cardin?

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for 
this business meeting. The three legislative matters that we 
have are all very, very important.
    I am pleased that we are able to move forward on H.R. 390, 
the Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act. It was 
introduced by Congressman Smith and passed the House of 
Representatives in June. It deals with circumstances in Iraq.
    There is an agreed-to amendment that will include the 
accountability for war crimes, the Syrian War Crimes 
Accountability Act. So we will be combining both Iraq and Syria 
into one bill and providing accountability for war crimes.
    I was pleased to be the sponsor of the Syrian War Crimes 
Accountability Act that passed this committee in June, so this 
is a matter that has already been before our committee, in 
regard to Syria. For Iraq, it is the first opportunity.
    Accountability for war crimes is critically important. We 
will all say, ``Never again.'' The only way ``never again'' 
will be realized is if we make sure that those who commit 
atrocities are held fully accountable, and the United States 
must be in the leadership.
    This legislation will provide assistance for 
investigations, so that we can have the information necessary 
to hold those who are responsible for these atrocities 
accountable. And, secondly, it helps the victims.
    Mr. Chairman, you were very kind in your comments in regard 
to the reauthorization of the Trafficking in Persons, about the 
passion that I have on this issue. I think we would all agree 
on this committee, there is no one who has shown greater 
leadership on this issue than our chairman, so we thank you for 
your commitment to end this modern-day slavery, this moral 
challenge to the United States. You have been in the forefront 
in our country and globally on ending modern-day slavery.
    I strongly support the reauthorization act.
    I also want to acknowledge the work of Senators Menendez 
and Rubio.
    And I thank you very much for recognizing two important 
points in this bill. First, we want the facts to judge the tier 
rankings, not politics. Whether it is a Democratic 
administration or a Republican administration, we want these 
determinations to be made by the facts in the countries. 
Secondly, in regard to children, I appreciate the issue in 
regard to child soldiers but also to forced labor that will 
require Tier 3 rankings for countries that do not meet the 
minimum conditions, and that we prohibit U.S. grants from 
including reimbursement on recruitment or placement fees, 
because that becomes debt bondage.
    Lastly, I want to thank you for bringing up S. Res. 168 
that I authored with Senator Rubio to make it clear that our 
counterterrorism partners do not get a free pass on human 
rights and democracy, and this resolution is very clear about 
that.
    I would ask, in regard to the nominees, that two of the 
nominees be separated for discussion and vote. That would be 
K.T. McFarland and Mr. Manchester.
    The Chairman. I would be more than glad to separate those, 
and understand that.
    Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
work that you and Senator Cardin have done on the Iraq and 
Syria genocide emergency relief act.
    I also want to very much thank you and Senator Cardin for 
working to incorporate into this legislation work that I have 
been doing on the study group on the conflict in Syria. Even 
though the Syrian conflict has been pushed off the front pages 
of the papers and the evening news, the fact is that the 
environment there is increasingly complex.
    On Saturday, we saw Syrian Democratic Forces and Russian 
Hezbollah-backed Assad forces clash in Deir ez-Zor, where 
Russian forces bombed the American-backed fighters tasked with 
clearing ISIS in the region.
    So this is a conflict that continues. So far, we have not 
had a clear strategy for how we address the region. And our 
troops and partners have been forced to jump from one tactical 
maneuver to the next.
    So the study required by this legislation, I hope, will 
help our troops and diplomats prepare for contingencies in 
Syria. It does require government consultation from both the 
Departments of State and Defense, and the review board would be 
appointed by bipartisan members of House and Senate national 
security committees.
    I think it will provide meaningful and actionable 
recommendations in the manner of previously congressionally 
mandated commissions. That is its charge. Hopefully, it will 
come out with a strategy that can be helpful as we look at 
ending this years' long conflict.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Cardin.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other comments to be 
made about legislation?
    Senator Kaine. Is this an appropriate time, Mr. Chair, to 
offer amendments?
    The Chairman. I will tell you what we will do. We have one 
member moving down the hallway, who is actually here now, so 
why don't I move to the nominations, and then we will move to 
the legislation, if that is okay.
    I know there are some concerns about two of the nominees, 
so as the ranking member requested, what I would like to do 
first is moved to the Honorable Barbara Lee to be 
representative to the U.N. General Assembly; the Honorable 
Chris Smith to be representative to the U.N. General Assembly; 
the Honorable Steve Mnuchin to be U.S. Governor of the IMF, the 
African Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, 
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the African 
Development Fund, and the Asian Development Bank; Mr. Stephen 
King to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic; and the Honorable 
John Bass to be Ambassador to Afghanistan.
    All those in favor of an en bloc vote -- do we have a 
second on that?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it.
    Now we have two other nominations that we are going to vote 
on. Do you want to vote on the two of them together?
    Senator Cardin. No, I would like to do that separately and 
make a brief statement in regard to each, if I might.
    The Chairman. Okay. Next, I would like to call up----
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, could I 
just say a brief word about Mr. Bass? I just supported his 
nomination, obviously.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Young. I think he is eminently qualified with a 
distinguished record of foreign service. But I submitted a 
question for the record to Mr. Bass, and it related to 
something very important, the Kabul compact, which set a 
benchmark for reforms developed by President Ghani and Chief 
Executive Abdullah.
    In my question, I asked him, if confirmed, whether or not 
he would work with General Nicholson through the State 
Department to provide my office or this committee a detailed, 
specific, and written unclassified assessment of where the 
Afghan Government is falling short on these commitments and how 
Kabul plans to address these shortcomings. And the response I 
got was somewhat vague. I know he had a lot of questions to 
respond to and so forth, so I still have confidence that he is 
going to serve and serve very well, which is why I support his 
nomination. I think we need to stay vigilant as a committee 
with respect to that issue moving forward.
    The Chairman. And maybe before it comes to the floor, you 
will get a better response from him on that.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Merkley. I wish to be recorded as a no vote on the 
nominations related to Mr. Mnuchin.
    The Chairman. So ordered.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    With that, we will move to roll call votes individually. 
The first vote will be on Mr. Doug Manchester to be Ambassador 
to the Bahamas.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, the Bahamas is a transit 
country for illicit drugs bound for the United States, which 
means that our Ambassador must possess the skills to advance 
strategic counternarcotics operations. In addition, a majority 
of the estimated 5.6 million tourists visiting the Bahamas are 
from the United States, requiring an unwavering attention to 
consular services.
    I am concerned that Mr. Manchester lacks these 
requirements. He has been described in a number of news reports 
as abrasive, a poor manager, and prone to verbal tirades. 
Additionally, he has made a number of troubling statements 
during his nomination hearings, including that the Bahamas is a 
protectorate of the United States and that the United States 
would want to avoid a South China Seas situation with the 
Bahamas. These statements indicate less than a thorough 
understanding of the basic diplomatic and national security 
issues.
    I note that U.S. has not had an Ambassador in Nassau since 
2011, since we were unable to confirm one during the Obama 
administration. Nevertheless, I cannot support Mr. Manchester, 
and I just urge our committee that, if we have confidence that 
the nomination process and the hearings are meaningful, I do 
not believe this person deserves our support.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    With that, we will have a roll call vote on his nomination. 
The clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    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 Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman. The nomination is agreed to in committee and 
will be passed to the floor.
    The next vote will be on Ms. K.T. McFarland to be 
Ambassador to Singapore.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chair, if I could, just very briefly, 
Ms. McFarland is very engaging person who clearly has a desire 
for public service, and I admire that in her. However, given 
the range of strategic challenges across the globe that our 
country faces, it is better that the U.S. Ambassador is seen as 
a unifying figure.
    Following extensive consideration of Ms. McFarland's 
record, and taking into account her statements during her 
nominations hearing, I have concluded that her past record 
would make it very difficult for her to serve as that unifying 
force. For that reason, I am unable to support her nomination.
    I appreciate the nominee's efforts before the committee to 
explain her substantial record of inflammatory statements. This 
includes stating that Vladimir Putin is the one who really 
deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Syria; saying 
that waterboarding, even if it is torture, it is probably worth 
doing; or saying of Saudi Arabia, ``They are Arabs. They are 
not going to say to your face something that they know is going 
to upset you.''
    It does not appear that the nominee has been particularly 
careful or judicious in the statements she has made in the 
past, and language is very important to be an Ambassador.
    Additionally, I have some concerns regarding the nominee's 
involvement as deputy to General Flynn during the transition 
process. Unfortunately, her answers to inquiries were not 
sufficiently responsive to meet all of my concerns.
    For that reason, I will not support her nomination.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other comments?
    I did think she tried to answer those questions and did so 
adequately. I know she has been in the entertainment business 
in the past, and sometimes people say things. But I thank you 
for your concerns.
    With that, the clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 9.
    The Chairman. The nomination is passed and will move to the 
floor.
    I thank all of you for participating. With that, we will 
move to legislation.
    We will move to H.R. 390. Senator Cardin, would you like to 
speak to this? Or any other member?
    I will entertain a motion to consider the substitute 
amendment and the Kaine-Corker-Murphy amendment, en bloc, by a 
voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. 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 the substitute 
amendment and the Kaine-Corker-Murphy amendment, en bloc by 
voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are 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 Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve H.R. 390, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The legislation, as 
amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2017.
    Senator Cardin, would you or any other member like to speak 
to this?
    Senator Cardin. I have already spoken. I am fine.
    The Chairman. First, I would like to entertain a motion to 
consider the Flake No. 1 and revised Flake No. 3 amendments, en 
bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve Flake No. 1 and 
revised Flake No. 3 amendments, en bloc by voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are 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 Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve TVPA 
authorization, 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 amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. Res. 168.
    Senator Cardin. would you or any other member like to speak 
to this?
    Senator Cardin. I have already spoken.
    The Chairman. First, I will entertain a motion to consider 
substitute amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the substitute amendments en bloc by voice 
vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No. response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are 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 Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Thank you. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 168, 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 amended, is 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 authorized.
    With that, and without objection, the business meeting will 
stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m. in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Young, Isakson, Portman, Cardin, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, 
Markey, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    We will consider a number of nominations today. I want to 
thank my colleague for helping the committee work through these 
nominations in an appropriate fashion 9 and to allow us to take 
these steps forward.
    Senator Cardin, do you have any comments you would like to 
make?

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Working with our 
staffs and all 12 the members of our committee, I support all 
these nominees.
    I do want to make just a very brief comment about Mr. 
Huntsman, Governor Huntsman, the Ambassador nominee to Russia. 
We listen to a lot of nominees before this committee. A lot of 
them are very well qualified. Certainly Governor Huntsman is 
one of those individuals that is very well qualified. But few 
have answered the questions with the clarity that he did and 
his commitment to carry out the type of strength for our values 
in our relationship with Russia. So I am enthusiastically 
supporting this nominee and hope that we can get him to Moscow 
as soon as possible.
    The Chairman. I could not agree more. I thought it was an 
outstanding testimony, one of the best we have heard, although 
we have heard numbers of very good ones. And I look forward to 
him being in Moscow.
    Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. What I would like to ask then is that we 
entertain a motion to approve all of the nominations en bloc by 
voice vote. If anyone wants to register a negative, they are 
able to do so. But I would like a motion to en bloc to move the 
Honorable Jon Huntsman to be Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Wess 
Mitchell to be Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian 
Affairs, Mr. Justin Siberell to be Ambassador to Bahrain, and 
Mr. Steven Dowd to be the U.S. Director of the African 
Development Bank.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. It has been moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Isakson. Second.
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed? Does anyone want to be recorded as a 
negative?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, that will complete our committee's 
business.
    We ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    And with that, without objection, the committee will stand 
adjourned from the business meeting.
    [Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in SD-
419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman 
of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Flake, Young, 
Isakson, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I call the Foreign Relations Committee to 
order.
    As you all have noticed, it is Senator Cardin's 59th 
birthday today.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, there should be certain 
privacies that are afforded Members of the United States 
Senate, so I am a little disappointed. But you picked on the 
wrong person. It is John Ryan's birthday today.
    He is on our staff. I mention that because John has been an 
incredibly valuable part of our staff, and he is going to be 
leaving us this week, going back for another assignment in the 
JAG Officer Corps. So we, first of all, want to thank John for 
his service on our staff and wish him well in his next 
assignment, but also wish him a happy birthday.
    So when we adjourn, I am going to have Senator Menendez 
sing a song to John.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may very briefly?
    The Chairman. Absolutely. We know that you have been in the 
choir before.
    Senator Menendez. I am not going to sing right now, but I 
will.
    I just want to join Senator Cardin. When I was the 
Chairman, I brought John on. He is an extraordinary individual 
with incredible talent and unlimited potential. And our Nation 
will be better served, even though he was of great service 
here, with him at the JAG Corps.
    So I wish him all the best, and I will embarrass him in 
front of the rest of the staff when we are finished.
    The Chairman. Very good. We are glad to see you here. Thank 
you. Thank you so much for being here, and everyone else.
    We are going to begin our opening comments, so when people 
get here, we have enough of a quorum that we can move through 
today's agenda.
    The business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    Today, we will consider three pieces of legislation.
    First, we have S. 832, the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act and the Millennium Challenge Modernization Act. I want to 
commend Senators Cardin, Isakson, Coons, Murphy, and Peters for 
bringing this bipartisan legislation to committee.
    This bill is nearly identical to legislation passed out of 
the committee last Congress and which cleared both houses in 
December, but which, I understand, because of a cloakroom 
error, failed to become law. Senator Cardin's substitute 
contains two technical fixes to bring the bill in line with 
legislation approved unanimously by the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee last week.
    AGOA has been an important part of our engagement with 
Africa. This bill asks the President to direct more resources 
toward helping African businesses trade with the United States.
    This bill also establishes necessary forums that will help 
safeguard U.S. taxpayer dollars and foster good governance by 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and it will ensure that 
the agency takes a coordinated and thoughtful approach in 
implementing concurrent compacts.
    Senator Cardin's substitute amendment adds a 7-year sunset 
for the provision, addressing MCC reporting requirements to the 
MCC board on a country's treatment of civil society. It also 
requires a determination of a country's eligibility for a 
subsequent non-concurrent compact to be based on, to the extent 
practicable, significantly improved performance across MCC 
eligibility criteria.
    I ask that you approve the AGOA and MCC Modernization Act, 
as amended by Senator Cardin's substitute amendment.
    Next, we are going to consider S. Res. 245, a resolution 
calling on the Government of Iran to release unjustly detained 
U.S. citizens and legal permanent resident aliens.
    As I am sure many of you know, Iran continues to unjustly 
detain several U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The 
five Americans in Iranian custody include an 80-year-old man, a 
graduate student, and a retired FBI agent. Iran's use of 
hostage-taking as a state policy is totally unacceptable and 
will continue to poison any future talks between our two 
countries.
    This resolution calls for Iran to release them and for the 
President to do whatever he can to get them home.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 211 condemning the 
violence and persecution in Chechnya.
    The leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, has overseen a campaign of 
violence and persecution against gay men in Chechnya. We 
condemn such acts and call upon the Russian Federation to 
protect the human rights of all its citizens.
    Two amendments address technical changes. And I would like 
to thank Senators Cardin, Toomey, and Markey for working on 
these.
    With that, I recognize my good friend Senator Cardin.

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

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 
thank you for the manner in which we have been able to bring 
these three important legislative issues to the business 
meeting.
    I want to start by first observing an important 
announcement that was made by our chairman last week, that he 
will not be seeking reelection.
    I know that we have to put up with you for another year. I 
understand that. And I know that this is not going to be our 
final opportunity to say things about our chairman, but I just 
really want to tell you how proud all of us have been to serve 
with you as chairman of this committee. We look forward to this 
next year.
    You have served our country and the Senate with great 
distinction. This committee is a committee that has a proud 
history, and its legacy has been made only stronger by your 
leadership. So you are going to be deeply missed in this 
committee and deeply missed in the United States Senate.
    But we want you to know that we understand your decision. 
We wish you only the best. And we look forward to a very 
productive year.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. I will miss all of you.
    Senator Cardin. On the three bills that you have referred 
to, I think you described them very well.
    Thank you on the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the 
Millennium Challenge Modernization Act. I want to thank Senator 
Isakson for his great help on this bill. I was joined by 
Senators Coons, Murphy, and Booker. Ed Royce on the House side 
has been a big leader on this.
    The MCC is transformational. It allows us to make a 
consequential difference in a country, and this bill will 
improve the tools on the MCC, so I am very proud about that.
    The AGOA is extremely important for sub-Sahara Africa, 
giving them economic opportunity, and I am pleased that we are 
able to act on that.
    Clearly, I want to thank Senators Cruz and Leahy in regard 
to U.S. prisoners in Iran. There are a lot of issues that we 
deal with Iran, and there is going to be a lot greater 
discussion coming up in the next couple weeks on Iran, but one 
of the things that we should all never lose sight of is the 
fact that we have Americans that are being held illegally in 
Iran, and they are always going to be our priority, to get them 
home.
    In Chechnya, Senator Toomey and Senator Markey, thank you 
for your leadership on that.
    What is happening there, particularly with gay men, is 
absolutely outrageous. And I appreciate the fact that we are 
acting on that today.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to mention one other issue. I 
personally, first, want to start by thanking you, because you 
have been extremely helpful in trying to get us to the finish 
line on the North Korea Human Rights Act that Senator Rubio and 
I have been working on. You did everything you could to get 
that on today's agenda, and I thank you for that. I mean that 
sincerely.
    We work in comity in this committee, and there are still 
some members who want to do different things on the North Korea 
bill, and I fully understand that.
    But I would just implore our colleagues, human rights 
always seem to be an issue that is negotiable on other issues, 
and it should not be. There are a lot of problems in North 
Korea. Believe me, there are, but let's not lose sight of the 
fact that the people in that country are suffering every minute 
on gross violations of human rights.
    And I am disappointed that we are not going to be able to 
move that bill today, but I do hope that we can work out the 
issues that members have, and we can get that bill moving 
quickly.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We are going to move through the legislation 
rapidly, I know. Is there anyone that wishes to speak to any of 
the three pieces?
    Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Although my public release pretty much said it all, I want 
to briefly echo Senator Cardin about, while I respect your 
decision, I am disappointed and I wish you were staying.
    I think you have shown extraordinary leadership. While we 
have not always agreed, for sure, I have always found you to 
have the integrity, the intellect, and the commitment to the 
issues that are critical for this committee and for the 
country.
    So I look forward to coming back and spending the next year 
both working with you and occasionally challenging you along 
the way. And I will have more to say when we get closer to the 
end of next year.
    Mr. Chairman, I specifically want to speak to S. Res. 245. 
I want to speak in strong support of the resolution, which 
specifically mentions Xiyue Wang, a student at Princeton 
University in New Jersey who the Iranian Government 
outrageously sentenced to 10 years in prison for espionage.
    Mr. Wang, who is of Chinese origin and who is a legal 
permanent resident of the United States, was simply pursuing 
scholarly research. He has a small son.
    Similarly, Siamak Namazi, a former student of Rutgers 
University in New Jersey, also remains in prison, along with 
his father, a former UNICEF employee.
    These are infuriating examples of the Iranian Government 
unjustly targeting foreigners and using prison sentencing for 
its political purposes. The regime is seemingly not satisfied 
with oppressing its own people.
    The resolution also notes former FBI agent Robert Levinson 
who has been ``missing'' in Iran for 10 years. Some of Robert's 
children are my constituents in New Jersey, and one of his sons 
currently works in my office.
    It is unacceptable that the Iranian Government is not fully 
cooperating in locating and returning Mr. Levinson. From 
everything that I have been able to deduce, they have facts and 
knowledge, and they have not brought his case to a successful 
conclusion.
    So let me close by simply saying, if Iran wants to be 
accepted by the community of nations and be observed in the 
international order as it suggests it aspires to do so, it has 
to stop hostage-taking, and stop it particularly in a way that 
targets United States citizens and legal permanent residents, 
and uses them, at the end of the day, as pawns.
    And I hope that, as we continue to deal with Iran, as I 
have been privileged to work on with you and with Senator 
Cardin and with others, that we focus on these lies, because if 
we were hostage somewhere in the world, we would want our 
government to forcefully speak out, to ultimately achieve 
return to our country.
    So I strongly support the resolution and look forward to 
continuing efforts in this regard.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 
statement.
    Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
    I want to commend Senator Cardin for his work on AGOA and 
improving the act. It is something I had the privilege of 
inheriting the responsibility when I served over in the House 
on the Ways and Means Committee.
    I would like to also give a shout-out. You were kind enough 
to mention Chairman Royce and his leadership on this effort. 
Charlie Rangel has really led, over the years, with respect to 
AGOA as well.
    I see further opportunities for modernization moving 
forward on this act, so we are going to have to continue to 
monitor the success of AGOA. We should debate things like 
whether or not certain countries should graduate out of AGOA, 
whether this model should be applied to other regions of the 
world, and whether the ``yarn-forward'' standard is something 
we should continue to embrace.
    But thank you for your improvement of the bill.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much for those comments.
    Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and I 
thank Senator Cardin for your work on the Chechnyan resolution.
    This resolution condemns Chechnyan officials' torture, 
murder, and incitement of so-called honor killings of men who 
are or are suspected of being gay. It calls for an end to 
persecution, and calls on Russian authorities to investigate 
and punish the perpetrators and protect the human rights of all 
citizens.
    We have 45 Senators, cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle. As you pointed out, Senator Cardin, I introduced it with 
Senator Toomey to ensure that it would be bipartisan.
    And I think it is an important statement for the Senate to 
make, that we stand united with Chechnya's LGBTQ community, who 
are victims of this cruel and murderous treatment at the hands 
of Chechnyan officials who govern under the authority of 
Russia. And it is important for us to persistently speak 
against inhumane treatment of human beings, no matter where 
they are on the planet.
    And I thank you for your consideration and support of this 
legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to echo the sentiments of my senior Senator, 
Senator Menendez, just at the outrage, but also the gratitude 
on S. Res. 245.
    Last Congress, Senator Hatch and I offered a resolution 
calling on Iran to release Siamak and Baquer Namazi. Some of 
you know that Baquer is in his 80s. He just had to have a 
procedure to get a pacemaker installed. He was not even allowed 
time to recover before he was sent back to prison.
    These are violations of international values. These are 
violations of the international order. We will continue, at 
least with this one Senator, to have me focused on Iran's 
isolation as well as Iran's inability to participate fully in 
the international context.
    This is a regime that we know believes that hostage-taking 
is a viable means with which to try to pressure and undermine 
this government and others around the country.
    As Senator Menendez mentioned, Xiyue Wang, a Ph.D. 
candidate from Princeton University, has been detained, and we 
know the continuing lack of insight into the condition of 
Robert Levinson.
    So I am grateful that the committee is taking this up 
again, and I am grateful that we are not allowing these 
outrages to go without a response and without a demand.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Thank you so much.
    I am concerned that if we express more gratefulness, we are 
not going to pass these. I thank everybody for their comments 
and tremendous work, but I am worried that we are going to lose 
a quorum.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to these?
    With that, then, first, I will entertain a motion to 
consider the substitute amendment by voice vote--wait a minute. 
Let me say what we are moving to.
    That was a resolution to increase my pay three times. I am 
just kidding. I do not even take it.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. First, we will move to S. 832, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge 
Modernization Act.
    Senator Cardin, we have already spoken to that.
    With that, I would entertain a motion to consider the 
substitute amendment by voice vote.
    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 the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    (A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Are there 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. 832, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. Res. 245 calling on the Government 
of Iran to release unjustly detained U.S. citizens and legally 
permanent resident aliens.
    Are there any amendments?
    Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the legislation 
by voice vote?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 245.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 211 condemning the 
violence and persecution in Chechnya.
    I will entertain a motion to consider the substitute 
amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    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 the substitute 
amendments en bloc by voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    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. Res. 211, as 
amended.
    All in favor will 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.
    That completes our committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes. Without objection, so ordered.
    I thank all of you for being here. I thank you for your 
great work.
    Yes, ma'am?
    Senator Shaheen. I think it would be remiss if we adjourned 
this committee without recognizing that it is Ben Cardin's 
birthday.
    The Chairman. We already did. It is his 59th birthday 
today, and we are celebrating it with him, and Menendez sang a 
chorus.
    With that, we are adjourned. Thank you so much.
    [Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present. Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, 
Paul, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, and 
Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. So, I am going to go ahead and call the 
meeting to order. I know that people are really accommodating 
us today. We thank you, and I do not want to keep people here 
longer than necessary. I have very short opening comments, but 
I want to get them out of the way so you guys can go to do your 
business. That is a guide for committee amendments.
    The business meeting of the Foreign Relations has come to 
order. On the agenda today, we will consider S. Res. 279, 
Reaffirming the Commitment of the United States to Promote 
Democracy, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law in Cambodia. I 
want to thank Senators McCain and Durbin for their bipartisan 
work on this legislation.
    The resolution affirms U.S. support to the Cambodian people 
in the face of Prime Minister Hun Sen's crackdown on civil 
society. Moreover, it sends a clear message to the Cambodian 
government that the United States will be watching the events 
leading up to next year's elections very, very closely. I ask 
that you approve S. Res 279, as amended by a substitute 
amendment.
    We will also consider a number of nominations, which is 
probably the most important task today, and an FSO list today. 
I want to thank my colleagues for helping the committee work 
through these nominations in an appropriate fashion and allow 
us to take these steps forward. Senator Cardin, thank you for 
allowing us to have this meeting. I would love to have any 
comments you might have.

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

    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Chairman, thank you very much. I want to reaffirm the 
Chairman's statements. I support the resolution that we have in 
regards to Cambodia, and thank our colleagues that were 
responsible for bringing this forward.
    The major number on the agenda today deal with nominations. 
And the Democratic members have been very anxious to 
accommodate quick consideration, assuming we have all the 
information we have, of nominees in the State Department, 
including our ambassadors, because we believe that the 
President and the administration has been very slow in getting 
us nominees. And it is critically important that we have 
confirmed positions in the State Department and our missions 
around the world in order to represent our country.
    Now, there are cases where we do not have all the 
information and we cannot respond, and there have been 
questions that have been asked that require follow-up. That is 
a normal part of the confirmation process. But as far as the 
timely consideration of nominations, I have seen comments made 
by the President of the United States saying that Democrats 
have been obstructionist in that regard. There has been 
absolutely no obstruction or tactics taken on our side in 
regards to these nominations. I will point out that there are 
problems with the administration in complying with what we have 
asked in Congress, and this is--there needs to be attention 
given, and we will be following that very closely. But today, 
we do have the nominees that we will--most of which we will 
support.
    There are two, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to be asking 
for separate roll call votes on those two, and the first is the 
nominee to be ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell. At that 
hearing, Senator Murphy was the ranking on the Democratic side, 
and I will yield to him for the concerns that some of us have 
in regards to his nomination. The other is Governor Senator 
Brownback to be ambassador-at-large for International Religious 
Freedom. Senator Kaine was the ranking Democrat at that 
hearing, and I will yield to him to explain concerns we have 
with that nominee.1
    The Chairman. I wonder if we could yield when we actually 
get to those people if that is all right.
    Senator Cardin. Yes.
    The Chairman. Since we do not have--just to be transparent. 
Since we do not have more Republicans than Democrats right now 
to deal with those, why do we not go ahead and deal with the 
ones we all----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. Why do we not deal with the ones 
we that we know we have no issue, if that is okay.
    Senator Cardin. That is fine.
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, I have to read them all aloud. 
There are a number of them.
    The Honorable Michele Sison to be ambassador of Haiti; the 
Honorable Peter Hoekstra to be ambassador to the Netherlands; 
the Honorable Kenneth Juster to be ambassador to India; the 
Honorable Larry Andre to be ambassador to Djibouti; Mr. Daniel 
Kritenbrink to be ambassador to Vietnam; Ms. Kathleen 
Fitzpatrick to ambassador to Timor-Leste; Mr. Richard Buchan to 
be ambassador to Spain and Andorra; Ms. Jamie McCourt to be 
ambassador to France and Monaco; Mr. Ed McMullen to ambassador 
to Switzerland and Liechtenstein; Mr. Peter Barlerin to be 
ambassador to Cameroon; Mr. Michael Dodman to be ambassador to 
Mauritania. excuse me. I'm very difficult this morning with 
pronunciations.
    Ms. Nina Fite to be ambassador to Angola; Daniel Foote to 
be ambassador to Zambia; Mr. David Reimer to ambassador to 
Mauritius and Seychelles; Mr. Eric Whitaker to be ambassador to 
Niger; Mr. Robert Kohorst to be ambassador of Croatia; Ms. 
Carla Sands to be ambassador to Denmark; Mr. Thomas Carter to 
be representative to the Council of the International Civil 
Aviation Organization; Mr. Michael Evanoff to be ambassador--
Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security; Ms. Jennifer 
Newstead to be legal advisor--thank you all for that, by the 
way; Ms. Manisha Singh to be ambassador--Assistant Secretary of 
State for Economic and Business Affairs, and the one--and there 
is a FSO list that I think you all have seen.
    If we could move on those. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
nominations and FSO List is agreed to.
    Now, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight; one, 
two, three, four, five, six, seven. It seems like a perfect 
time----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. It seems like a--yes, sir?
    Senator Young. Could I make a quick comment on the record 
related to Ms. Newstead's nomination, please?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Young. All right. So, if confirmed, we know Ms. 
Newstead is going to serve as the principal legal advisor to 
the Department of State on all legal matters, domestic and 
international. And this committee will not be surprised to hear 
I have been focused on the situation in Yemen and the steps 
that--of our Saudi partners and ones they can take to alleviate 
suffering. In the world's largest humanitarian crisis, it is 
important for the U.S. government to fully comply with our own 
laws related to foreign assistance, and to use all our 
substantial leverage with our Saudi partners to encourage them 
to take steps to prevent any more in Yemen from starving, and 
succumbing, to cholera and dying.
    In addition to the moral and humanitarian imperative and 
the requirements of the law, I have also argued why such steps 
are in the national security interest of the U.S. and Saudi 
Arabia. Unfortunately, for months our Department of State has 
been unresponsive to my questions related to the law and that 
Saudi Arabia's actions mimic. As a member of the State's 
Oversight Committee, it is important that we follow up on these 
matters.
    That is why I met with Ms. Newstead. I was really impressed 
by her credentials, but I expressed to her my concerns, and I 
raised those concerns again in her nomination hearing. I also 
submitted a number of detailed questions to Ms. Newstead and 
the Department related to the U.S. law and Saudi actions in 
Yemen. My office received responses last night after 5:30 p.m. 
I am grateful for those responses. I am still reviewing them in 
great detail. We have conducted an initial review, and it is 
going to take some time, though.
    So, for that reason, just know that I am going to need some 
more time to review these responses and determine whether they 
are sufficient in my mind to--before she receives a vote on the 
floor. And I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. No, thank you, and I appreciate--I am glad 
you received a response. Hopefully it is adequate, but I 
understand it is your prerogative in the event or not. So, 
thank you very much.
    Senator Young. Thanks.
    The Chairman. So, I understand we need to have a roll call 
vote on Sam Brownback and on Richard Grenell.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Merkley. Could I follow up on my colleague's point? 
We have had this challenge in a number of committees in getting 
responses to questions. I guess I am asking if--is it your 
preference that we set aside that nomination until you have had 
a chance to review those questions and then take it up again?
    Senator Young. It is my preference--I just voted 
affirmatively. It is my preference to vote Ms. Newstead out of 
the committee, to review the legal responses, and then I can 
make up my mind about the path forward.
    The Chairman. She still has a chance on the floor, and----
    Senator Merkley. I appreciate that point, and I do feel 
there are times when if we do not get answers before a 
committee vote, that we should all in a bipartisan fashion send 
the message we need to get the answers for people to consider. 
And I think they would be very quick getting us answers if they 
knew that that might hinder their path.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. All right. I know that 
people wish to speak on Mr. Brownback to be ambassador-at-large 
for the International Religious Freedom, and Mr. Grenell to be 
ambassador to Germany. So, I will let that happen first, and 
then we will have roll call vote. And thank you so much for 
allowing this to go forward, and hopefully all Republicans will 
stay for just a minute.
    Yes, sir.
    Senator Cardin. Well, in regards to Mr. Grenell, let me, if 
I could, yield to Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick. 
Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote no on Mr. Grenell's 
nomination, but I will admit to it being a close call. He has a 
history of public service having represented us as a spokesman 
at the UN. I had a good meeting with him in which he was very 
forthright about many of my concerns.
    But Mr. Grenell, being a long-time public commenter, has 
had a pretty troubling history of intentional 
mischaracterizations of U.S. foreign policy. And most 
disturbingly, a pattern of some very troubling and derogatory 
comments about women, not just one or two, but a long string of 
them. We are sending him to be our representative, our 
ambassador to a country that is headed by perhaps the most 
powerful woman leader in the world today.
    And though we have always sent political ambassadors to 
Germany, this is not a post that has been traditionally filled 
by career individuals, we cannot just send people there with 
this kind of very controversial political record behind that. 
And so, I think we could have found somebody much more suitable 
for the position. I am not sure he is going to be able to 
overcome what are a deeply troubling string of comments behind 
him. For that reason, I am going to be opposing.1
    The Chairman. Thank you, and thanks for allowing this to go 
forward. Yes, sir?
    Senator Kaine. If I could speak about Governor Brownback's 
nomination, and I will say sort of what Chris did. This was not 
an easy one. I think I went into that hearing, and I was the 
ranking at that hearing in the stead of Senator Menendez that 
day. I went in inclined to support because people that I care 
about--Greg Wolf, former Congressman Jim Slattery--were 
supportive. I just found the hearing very, very troubling.
    I had a couple of concerns, and I know Senator Shaheen had 
a couple, and I felt like Governor Brownback's answers were 
very troubling. The first dealt with his feeling about LGBT 
citizens, two actions that I asked him about. He has an 
executive order that preceded him in Kansas that protected 
folks, even on the grounds of sexual orientation, from being 
discriminated against in the workforce. He did not change it. 
He accepted that order in his first term, during part of his 
second term. Then in a way that looked very gratuitous, in the 
middle of his second term he just retracted that protection for 
LGBT Kansans.
    There had not been controversy about it. It was not 
creating a problem. But he just acted to retract it in a way 
that I thought was gratuitous, and when I asked him about it, I 
did not find his explanation convincing. He said, well, you 
know, the legislature should do that. I asked him if he 
commonly did executive orders. He said that he did, and you 
only do executive orders when the legislature does not do 
something. So, I did not find that convincing. Harry Truman 
integrated the military via executive order. He did not wait 
for Congress to do it. So, retracting a protection on that 
ground seemed unusual.
    But more troubling was a series of questions that I asked 
Governor Brownback about the persecution of LGBT folks around 
the world. People can be jailed, people can be prosecuted, 
people can be executed simply for being LGBT. And I asked him 
very bluntly whether that was acceptable if somebody claimed a 
religious motivation for such laws, and he would not give me an 
unequivocal and plain answer. He could not condemn the 
persecution, prosecution, imprisonment, or even execution of 
people who are LGBT if somebody or some country claimed that 
there was a religious motivation for it.
    I think feelings about these issues of sexual orientation 
are really deeply held, and having differences of opinion, and 
churches do and people do, those are all fine. But when it--
when it extends to the civil space, we have a Constitution that 
says everybody is entitled to equal protection. And I do not 
think you--of the laws, and I do not think you can use a 
religious motivation to suggest that some people--that it is 
okay to treat some people in a second-class way. And his 
inability to answer what I thought was a softball question, and 
the repeated attempts to get him to answer the softball 
question, I found to be very troubling.
    Senator Shaheen had some similar concerns and questions 
about his stance on women's rights, his support of an anti-
Sharia law provision he enacted in Kansas. And I think what we 
sort of came to the conclusion about is if there was a position 
to protect Christian minorities, Governor Brownback would be 
fantastic at that, and he would be vigorous in it. That is an 
important thing to do. But I think folks of other religions in 
a minority standpoint would not really feel like he would have 
their back. And that is a foundational Jeffersonian principle, 
first in the extension of religious freedom in Virginia in 
1780, and then in the First Amendment. Everybody should feel 
like they're protected in how they worship or not, and they 
should not be hurt or punished based on that.
    And I do not believe that Governor Brownback has really 
acted that way, and I would worry that he would not send a 
message about the full extent of what we believe about 
religious freedom in this country. So, for that reason I am 
going to oppose him.
    The Chairman. Well, listen, thank you both. Thank you all 
for actually allowing us to go forward, and I actually 
understand the concerns. I plan to support these nominees, but 
I appreciate the fact that we can disagree agreeably and raise 
concerns appropriately. And with that, Do we want to do them 
separately?
    Senator Cardin. Separately.
    The Chairman. Do them separately. So, I guess I would 
entertain----
    All those in favor of Mr. Grenell--we will do it by roll 
call. Okay. The clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.1
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. It will pass out of committee and go to the 
floor. Thank you all.
    And now, we are going to have a vote for Governor 
Brownback. The clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.1
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.1
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Cardin. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. Thank you all so much. The nomination passes. 
It will go to the floor, and we will work together to have the 
confirmations that are necessary to fill the State Department.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 279, Reaffirming the 
Commitment of the U.S. to Promote Democracy, Human Rights, and 
the Rule of Law in Cambodia. I will entertain a motion to 
consider the substitute amendment, which will make a small 
adjustment for clarity, en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?1
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the substitute amendment en block by voice 
vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. Res. 279, as amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. And with that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation, as amended, is 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.
    And with that, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank 
you all for your cooperation.
    [Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Isakson, 
Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Flake, Portman, Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations business meeting 
will come to order.
    We are going to do just a little bit of business on the 
front and hopefully take care of some business quickly. I know 
people have other meetings. Then we are going to move to the 
hearing itself.
    We do thank our witnesses for allowing us to do this, and 
we are glad you are here.
    We have a number of items on the agenda today. We will move 
a number of nominations and Foreign Service Officer lists. We 
will also take up S. 1928, the Multilateral Aid Review Act of 
2017.
    I want to thank Senator Coons for his leadership and hard 
work on this bill. I want to also recognize Senators Isakson, 
Rubio, Young, Kaine, and Merkley for their contributions to 
this important bipartisan legislation before our committee.
    This bill would establish a process for conducting 
objective reviews on how well multilateral institutions carry 
out their missions with our funding. The authorities sunset 
after four review periods in 11 years.
    Through this process, we will be able to evaluate their 
performance in an objective way. The review will look at 
performance, management, accountability, transparency, 
alignment with U.S. foreign policy goals, and efficiency.
    The U.S. spent around $11 billion to support the work of 
these entities, and we owe the U.S. taxpayers good value for 
their money. These reviews will help us make better informed 
decisions about how to prioritize scarce resources. It will 
also provide solid grounds for advocating for changes and 
reforms.
    Others, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have done 
similar reviews of their multilateral contributions --with good 
results.
    I urge you to support this effort to promote greater 
accountability for our spending on multilateral entities.
    Senator Cardin. do you have any comments you wish to make?

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

    Senator Cardin. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. But before I 
comment on the bill and nominations that are on our agenda, I 
want to comment regarding information statistics regarding the 
Foreign Service that have been made public over the last week.
    Ambassador Barbara Stephenson of the American Foreign 
Services Association stated last week that, ``There is no 
denying that our leadership ranks are being depleted at a 
dizzying speed, due in part to the decision to slash promotion 
numbers by more than half. The Foreign Service Officer Corps at 
State has lost 60 percent of its career Ambassadors since 
January. The ranks of career ministers, our three-star 
equivalents, are down from 33 to 19. The ranks of our two-star 
minister counselors have fallen from 431 after Labor Day to 369 
today and are still falling.''
    Ambassador Stephenson, who is the president of the 
governing board of the AFSA, is imploring us to ask why.
    I feel like I have been asking why of the administration 
and the State Department on a lot of issues lately, including 
the myriad personnel, budget, and reorganization matters. I am 
not getting a lot of answers.
    Just as one small example, although the Trump 
administration lifted the Federal hiring freeze in April 2017, 
the State Department and USAID has elected to keep its own 
hiring freeze in place. Why? My impression is that the morale 
is at an all-time low at the State Department and USAID causing 
a massive exodus of diplomatic and development expertise.
    Why is this happening? And what is the department's 
leadership doing about it?
    Our President said recently that we do not need to worry 
about the fact that many of the senior-level positions at the 
State Department remain unfilled because, when it comes to 
foreign policy, his opinion is the only one that matters. Why 
on Earth would he say that? For the thousands of FSOs around 
the world working to advance the ideals of the United States, 
this was a horrible message.
    If this sort of high-level decapitation of leadership was 
going on at the Defense Department with three- and four-star 
officers resigning, and younger officers and enlisted personnel 
suffering low morale and leaving as well or not even signing 
up, I can guarantee you that Congress would be up in arms. Yet, 
here, there is silence. Why?
    The State Department and USAID, I would offer, are every 
bit as vital and critical an element to our national security 
as the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, law 
enforcement, and myriad of others in the Federal Government who 
work tirelessly every day to protect our security, extend our 
prosperity, and promote our values.
    Folks, this situation is alarming. We put our country in 
danger when we do not have adequate voice and resources to all 
of our country's national security tools. Secretary Madeleine 
Albright once said, ``In a turbulent and perilous world, the 
men and women of Foreign Service are on the frontlines every 
day on every continent for us.''
    This committee needs to continue to press this issue. It is 
our responsibility to make sure that we have the diplomatic 
assets in place in order to represent our national security.
    Moving to the legislative item, I want to thank Senators 
Corker and Coons for their effort on this bill.
    Multilateral institutions are a critical part of our 
foreign assistance efforts. They help us coordinate activities, 
leverage funds, and advance our national interests and values. 
If successful, the Multilateral Aid Review Act will provide us 
with clear metrics, reliable talent, and solid analysis of our 
multilateral investments.
    Mr. Chairman, I hope every member of the committee will 
read the bill, because I think it does spell out what our 
expectations are in regard to carrying out missions, the right 
use of resources, and that we review this on a periodic basis 
so that we make sure that our multilateral efforts are in our 
national security interests.
    I think this is an important bill, and I applaud you for 
your work.
    One last point, if I might. I know we have a quorum, but 
one last point.
    We are getting near the end of this work period. We only 
have one more work period remaining before we adjourn for the 
year. There is an extremely important bill that Senators Rubio 
and Baldwin have been working on, the just act, which would 
require additional State Department reporting on European 
government efforts to return or provide restitution for 
property wrongly seized during the Holocaust.
    I have said this before, but time is running out on this 
issue. As people are getting much older, fewer are surviving. 
And it is becoming much more difficult to deal with 
restitution.
    I really applaud the work that was done on this bill. I 
know there are many members of this committee that are 
cosponsors, including Senators Johnson, Young, Booker, Coons, 
Menendez, and Markey. And I would just urge the Democratic and 
Republican staff to try to get together with the sponsors to 
see whether we can move this bill through our committee this 
year.
    And I appreciate the Chairman's attention.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to ask if it is 
possible, because I know we have conflicts taking place at 
10:15, if we could go ahead and move through the business. If 
people want to make comments afterward, I am glad to hear it. 
Obviously, we are going to have a long hearing.
    So let me just say, we had a very unsatisfactory meeting 
last week with the State Department, our two staffs did. I 
think the concerns about the State Department are bipartisan in 
nature. I do not think they are anywhere close to having a plan 
to present relative to the reforms that they want to make 
there. And I do think that we need to be much more focused on 
holding them accountable, because I think many of the things 
that you said, if not all, but many of them anyway, are very 
true.
    With that, I understand that Mr. Ueland for the Under 
Secretary of State, Management, has been held over, and he will 
be considered on the next business meeting.
    I would entertain a motion to approve the remaining 
nominations en bloc by voice vote, including Ms. Lisa Johnson, 
Mr. Sean Lawler, Mr. Steve Goldstein, Ms. Rebecca Gonzalez, and 
two Foreign Service Officer lists.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Are there any recorded noes that any 
individuals would like on any of these nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Seeing none, the ayes have it, and the 
nominations and promotions are agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. 1928. First, I would entertain a 
motion to approve the substitute amendment and the Portman 
amendment en bloc by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment and the Portman amendment en bloc.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the work of the committee on the Multilateral Aid 
Review Act of 2017.
    I have two amendments here. I would like to thank Senator 
Rubio for joining me as a cosponsor on both of these 
amendments.
    One addresses the issue of Taiwan. It talks about using the 
United States' voice and our vote in international 
organizations to make sure that we are advocating for the 
addition of Taiwan as an observer to such organizations and 
entities. We did it last year with Interpol, and I believe we 
should stand up for Taiwan as a great partner and an especially 
important voice in these international organizations.
    The other amendment is addressing North Korea. In a meeting 
that Senator Markey and I hosted with a former resident of 
North Korea, a high-level defector, the Deputy Ambassador to 
the United Kingdom, he said that the one thing that could make 
a difference in North Korea is cutting off diplomatic relations 
with North Korea, other nations around the globe that have not 
done that yet, and isolating, diplomatically, north Korea as 
much as possible.
    So this amendment would use our voice and vote in 
international organizations and entities to do just that, to 
make sure that we are stressing the importance of diplomatic 
isolation of the North Korean regime.
    And I think these two amendments present a very significant 
contrast. You have Taiwan, somebody that we want to partner 
with, somebody that is an incredible partner, somebody who 
abides by and respects the rule of law, that cannot participate 
in these international organizations. And then you have North 
Korea that has been sanctioned almost greater than any other 
nation on the face of this planet by the United States, and yet 
they are allowed to be in the United Nations. They are allowed 
to be a full part of the diplomatic community.
    So I think this is just a good contrast where, why is the 
nation that is testing nuclear bombs in violation of every 
sanction possible being treated better than Taiwan that is a 
great international partner?
    So I am going to withdraw these two amendments for the sake 
of moving forward on 1928, but I do think it is important that 
we continue this conversation.
    I thank you for the work that you have been doing on this 
legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And I do want to point out that, 
as a new member on this committee, you passed one of the most 
meaningful pieces of legislation that has ever been passed on 
North Korea. I know we have had legislation passed since that 
time, and I know there is a Banking Committee piece that has 
passed out on sanctions. I understand you are working very 
closely with us and with the sponsors of that bill to add your 
language there, and I just want to thank you for being so 
focused on that part of the world and your leadership of that 
committee.
    And thank you for withdrawing these, so that we can work 
constructively toward another end on the bill I am talking 
about.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation as amended?
    Senator Cardin. 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 S. 1928, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is 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, the committee stands adjourned exactly at 10:15, 
as we said. We will see Finance Committee members later. Thank 
you so much. I appreciate it.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Coons. If I could just briefly thank you for 
working with me on this bill, and thank Senator Cardin, and 
thank everybody who has been a cosponsor.
    We spend $10 billion a year on the United Nations, World 
Bank, and a lot of other organizations, and I appreciate this 
approach, and I appreciate Senator Merkley's amendment that 
will make the whole methodology more transparent.
    I think we have to continue on a bipartisan way to work to 
make sure that what foreign aid we are investing is done well 
and wisely, and I appreciate the opportunity to work together 
on the bill.
    The Chairman. I appreciate being able to work with you on 
this. I think people understand, too, this also gives us the 
ability with this data to strongly support those agencies that 
we believe ought to be strongly supported if they are producing 
good results, so thank you.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. So with that, we will now move to the 
hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 10:16 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2017

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in 
room-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Isakson, 
Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Flake, Portman, Paul, Cardin, 
Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 
Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I am going to call the meeting to order. I 
want to thank everybody for coming.
    I have a number of things I could say on the front end, 
and, Ben, I am sure you could, too. But I wonder, I know that 
Portman only has 15 minutes here.
    Senator Portman. I am presiding.
    The Chairman. You are presiding. That is right.
    Would you object if we just go straight to the votes and 
then give comments after?
    Senator Cardin. That is fine.
    The Chairman. Is that okay with members that may want to 
give comments?
    Senator Cardin. I do want to just explain to the members, I 
understand how you may be voting on the nominees, but I will be 
explaining why I will not be supporting two of the nominees. I 
just want all the members to know that we have concerns with 
two of the nominees that we are going to be voting on, that is 
Mr. Ueland and Mr. Evans.
    The Chairman. Well, because of those concerns and because 
Murphy has walked in and made it 7 to 6, we will hold off on 
the noms.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. So why don't we go ahead and move to the 
other business, and we will do the noms when either a couple 
Democrats leave----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. Or another Republican comes in.
    So I guess what we will do--again, we will make comments 
after, for the record. I appreciate the work that so many 
people have done, and I want to give those accolades in just a 
moment.
    But let's move to S. 1118, the North Korean Human Rights 
Reauthorization Act. I would like to entertain a motion to 
approve the substitute amendment and the Rubio amendment, en 
bloc, by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Murphy. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment and the Rubio amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
amendments are agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1118, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. 1901, the LEED Act. First, I will 
entertain a motion to approve the substitute amendment and 
manager's amendment, en bloc, by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Gardner. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment and the manager's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
first of all, I want to thank you and the ranking member----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you if I can do this, if I could? 
Is there any way, in the middle of a motion, to move to 
something else?
    Senator Markey. By unanimous consent, you can do anything.
    The Chairman. By unanimous consent, because of the mix that 
we have here in the room, and because I know you all are not 
wishing to obstruct, can we stop the business at hand and take 
up the nominations?
    Senator Cardin. That is perfectly okay. As I explained 
before some of you got here, I am going to vote against Mr. 
Ueland and Mr. Evans. I am more than happy to go over the 
reasons, if members would like to have them prior to the vote. 
But I think we have gone over this before.
    So I am prepared to allow the votes to go forward and will 
put into the record the reasons after the vote.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Isakson. The Senator from Maryland and I have 
talked about this before. I want to say that Randy Evans is a 
great Georgian. He has been a great American who has worked in 
a number of administrations. He will be a great Ambassador.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Are we still good?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Chairman. Hey, Coons, could you leave the room?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Seriously, do you not need to go to the----
    Senator Cardin. I want to compliment my Democratic 
colleagues for being here.
    The Chairman. With unanimous consent, we will move back to 
the business that we did have at hand, which was that Senator 
Markey had some comments about the bill before us.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    We are talking here about additional sanctions that should 
be and, in my opinion, must be applied to deal with the 
situation in North Korea.
    We have Members of the Senate who are publicly talking 
about the need to evacuate 200,000 Americans from the South 
Korean Peninsula. We are on a march to war. We have a dangerous 
situation that is only escalating.
    The Banking Committee's legislation is a good piece of 
legislation, but it excludes the key sanctions that have been 
successful in the past to drive the North Koreans to the table. 
That includes sanctions on oil and sanctions on slave wages.
    And so I appreciate the language that has been included in 
the bill, the reporting language on oil exports, additional 
sanctions on illicit drug production, stronger reporting in 
general. But my feeling is that we are at a critical juncture 
as North Korea moves very rapidly toward the perfection of its 
ICBM program with miniaturization of a hydrogen bomb that can 
reach the United States.
    They have telescoped the timeframe. They are moving very 
rapidly. I do believe that we should be imposing much tougher 
sanctions.
    With Jeff Merkley, Chris Van Hollen, we went to Korea in 
the last week of August. When we were on the Yalu River, in the 
major commercial connection between North Korea and China, we 
took this picture of an oil truck going across the bridge from 
China into North Korea. It is happening as we speak, in 
addition to a crude oil pipeline, which continues to flow on a 
daily basis.
    In my opinion, if we do wind up with a military action that 
takes place, and it escalates rapidly, the American people will 
want to know that we actually imposed the toughest possible 
sanctions without engaging in regime change, that we sent the 
message, and we gave the discretion to the administration to 
use this power wisely.
    That has not happened yet. I think in the same way in 
Russia and Iran that the Senate acted, we should do so now, 
given the escalation of rhetoric that has taken place.
    So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you do not want 
amendments at this point in time on these issues. But my own 
opinion is that, if we can peacefully stop Kim from finishing 
his program, that we should exhaust all remedies to do so.
    I think many people now look back at the war in Iraq and 
they say that we did, in fact, stop his nuclear weapons 
program, but yet we had a war anyway that cost a trillion 
dollars and untold misery to hundreds of thousands of families 
in our country.
    So my own perspective on this is that the Foreign Relations 
Committee should play a very robust role at this time, given 
all of the rhetoric that we are hearing from the White House 
and now increasingly from the Senate floor.
    And I will not make the amendments at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, but I do think it is a subject before we reach the 
floor of the Senate that we have to discuss. If a sanctions 
package is going to pass, and we know that, in 1994 and in 
2006, that is what drove the North Koreans back to the table, 
if we have not attempted to truly use that option, then we will 
not have played our role in trying to exhaust every remedy 
before a war begins.
    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Cardin. And I will have some comments later on.
    The Chairman. And I know other people--Cory has worked very 
closely. Thank you for the additions you have made.
    If you will, I am going to move ahead, and we can talk more 
about this, if it is okay, just because of some other business 
that has to happen.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Paul. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1901, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    We are going to move back to nominations.
    Senator Cardin. You can move, I think, 10 through 15 en 
bloc. There may be some individual recorded noes.
    The Chairman. So, first, I understand we need to move to a 
roll-call vote on the first two nominations. We will consider 
Eric Ueland to be Under Secretary of State for Management. I 
understand that this has to be a roll-call vote.
    The clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yays are 11. The nays are 10.
    The Chairman. And if we could, let's move Senator Risch's 
vote to present aye, not proxy aye, if that is okay with him.
    With that, the ayes have it, and he will be reported to the 
floor.
    Next, we will entertain a motion to deal with Mr. James 
Randolph Evans to be Ambassador to Luxembourg.
    The clerk will 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. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yays are 11. The nays are 10.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Portman thank you so much for being here.
    Next, we will entertain a motion to move the following 
nominees, with one resolution: Mr. Chris Ford to be Assistant 
Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation; Yleem Poblete to be Assistant Secretary of 
State for Verification and Compliance; Rear Admiral Kenneth 
Braithwaite to be Ambassador to Norway; Brock Bierman to be 
assistant administrator of USAID for Europe and Eurasia; Lee 
McClenny to be Ambassador to Paraguay; and S. Res. 150, the 
World Press Freedom Day Resolution.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it and the----
    Senator Cardin. I think there might be some members--I want 
to make sure that none of our members want to be recorded as 
no.
    The Chairman. Sure. Does anybody want to be recorded?
    With that, the ayes have it, and the nominations and the 
resolution are agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. 447, the Justice for Uncompensated 
Survivors Today Act. First, I will entertain a motion to 
approve the substitute amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amendment?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the legislation, 
as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 139. First, I will 
entertain a motion to approve the preamble and resolving clause 
amendments, en bloc, by voice vote.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the preamble and 
resolving clause amendments, en bloc, by voice vote.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendments 
are agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the resolution, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the resolution, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The resolution, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    And with that, I want to thank everybody for letting us do 
this in a somewhat unorthodox manner.
    I have some opening comments that I will make later. I know 
that is unusual, but I know we have members that want to speak 
to North Korea and others, and I would be glad for anyone who 
wants to make comments other than myself to do so at present.
    Senator Cardin. If I might, Mr. Chairman, let me, if I 
might, comment on several of these issues.
    First, in regard to S. 1901, I want to thank Senator 
Gardner and Senator Markey for their work on this. A lot of 
what Senator Markey said in regard to trying to strengthen 
this, I certainly look forward to working with you.
    We want the toughest possible sanctions against North 
Korea, considering their continued belligerent behavior in 
violation of international nonproliferation, as they are very 
much with their ballistic missile testing and their nuclear 
program.
    I also just want to acknowledge one part of this bill, 
which I think is very, very important, and that is that our 
objective is clearly a complete, verifiable, and irrefutable 
dismantling of their nuclear program. But we recognize that the 
way forward to get this resolved is through a surge in 
diplomacy. And I just really want to underscore that point.
    We recognize that the only way that is going to work is 
with the United States working with our international partners, 
particularly Japan and the Republic of Korea, but also Europe, 
in a common position with China so that we have a strategy 
where diplomacy can work, where there is confidence that our 
objective is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, not 
a regime issue, and that we are prepared to have steps taken to 
build confidence in our goal to achieve a nonnuclear peninsula.
    I think that is clearly our best case forward. And I want 
to make it clear that, as I look at this bill, I think it helps 
us to achieve that end. I just want to underscore the point 
that we really need to facilitate diplomacy that makes sense, 
particularly working with China, because they could change the 
equation in North Korea.
    In regard to S. 1118, I want to thank Senator Rubio for his 
work on that. I was pleased to work with him on that particular 
issue. Human rights in North Korea, it is the worst country of 
the world.
    This weekend, we celebrate International Human Rights Day. 
I think it is appropriate that we pass out of the committee 
this particular bill at this particular time because North 
Korea violates just about every human rights standard.
    As one of our former ambassadors to the United Nations 
said, they grow missiles rather than allow their children to 
grow. And it is a true statement. They starve their population. 
They commit murders of people who disagree with the regime. 
They use rape. The use sexual violence. They persecute on 
religion and political reasons, gender persecution, and the 
list goes on and on and on.
    So I am very pleased that we are speaking with a united 
voice in regard to the reauthorization of the North Korean 
Human Rights Act.
    Thank you for moving S. 447. Again, I thank Senator Rubio 
and Senator Baldwin. This will require the State Department to 
report on the status of countries on the return of stolen 
properties against Jews during World War II. I think the fact 
that we are going to do that inventory will have a very 
positive impact on actions of other countries to at last return 
stolen property to the rightful heirs.
    And I thank the Chairman for moving this resolution through 
this committee.
    I want to thank Senator Rubio for his two resolutions, one 
on press freedom, the other on the persecution of the Baha'i 
minority.
    In regard to the nominees, I want to just put on the record 
the reasons why the Democrats oppose Mr. Ueland to be Under 
Secretary of State for Management.
    We were concerned by his response during the hearing. I had 
asked him a question in regard to following the direction of 
Congress in regard to appropriated funds. I got, at that time, 
I thought an acceptable answer. Senator Shaheen followed it up 
with additional questions, and the responses were not 
satisfactory.
    We have a challenge that we want people that we confirm to 
carry out the laws that we pass, and I was not convinced that 
Mr. Ueland would be that strength in management to carry out 
the appropriations that we pass in Congress that are 
desperately needed.
    You know, we have a disagreement with this administration 
on funding. Democrats and Republicans both agree that the 
administration's budget is not realistic, and we are going to 
provide more money. And both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees have provided more money. We want to 
make sure that the person who is responsible to carry this out 
will, in fact, carry out the legislative mandate on the 
department.
    And when you put on top of that the problems we are having 
with this administration on its plan to redesign the 
department, which we have yet to see and we do not know when it 
is coming; the freeze they have on hiring; their inability to 
fill critical positions, we need a strong voice in this 
position. And I think we are not comfortable that Mr. Ueland is 
the right person to do that.
    In regard to Mr. Evans, a very fine person, I agree with 
you. We have a concern about what he did in not carrying out a 
court order on voter participation. And what he did, it is hard 
for us to understand sending out instructions that were 
contrary to a court order in regard to participation in an 
election. And that has caused us to have concern as to whether 
he should be confirmed as Ambassador.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, was Dr. Poblete in the list 
that you read?
    The Chairman. She was.
    Senator Merkley. I would like to be recorded as a no vote.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Booker. I would like to also be recorded as a no 
vote.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Are there any other comments?
    Senator Gardner, thanks again for your great work. And I 
want to personally thank you for the fact that the Banking 
Committee had a bill that came out. You authored, and we 
collectively passed, an outstanding North Korea bill under your 
leadership, and I appreciate that very much.
    The Banking Committee has jurisdiction over sanctions, and 
we know bills can be rewritten in certain ways to go to certain 
committees. But you and Senator Markey have worked together to 
complement that, and you have done so in a cooperative way, and 
I very much appreciate both of you doing it. My understanding 
is the likelihood is those two bills will be joined on the 
floor. And I thank you for your patience.
    And with that, I will turn to you.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator 
Markey and I have no idea what you are talking about, writing 
bills to try to get around somebody else's jurisdiction.
    But I want to thank you for your support and this 
committee's work, really, on North Korea, because last year's 
legislation that Senator Menendez was so instrumental in 
passing, Senator Cardin as well, really did set a strong tone 
against North Korea.
    At the time, when we passed that legislation, North Korea 
was the eighth most sanctioned nation on Earth by the United 
States, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracy. 
Today, they are the fourth most sanctioned nation by the United 
States, since the passage of our legislation. That is a 214 
percent increase in sanctions against North Korea.
    But we still have a very long way to go to ramp up the 
maximum pressure, to ramp up the economic and diplomatic 
pressure on North Korea. There is still room on this runway 
left for economic and diplomatic pressure before any other 
action is taken by the United States.
    So I believe there must be more to achieve that goal, which 
is the complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantling of the 
North Korean missile program.
    China is critical to this, especially. According to C4ADS, 
there are over 5,000 businesses in China that still do business 
with North Korea today. The original legislation that Senator 
Markey and I--again, Senator Markey has been an incredible 
partner in this. And I think I agree wholeheartedly with what 
he said about increasing pressure, this moment in time we have, 
before anything else happens.
    Our original legislation identified 10 businesses in China 
that are responsible collectively, these 10 businesses, for 30 
percent of the trade China has with North Korea. Remember, 
North Korea and China, China is responsible for 90 percent of 
North Korea's economy. These 10 companies were responsible for 
30 percent of North Korea and China trade. One company is 
responsible for 10 percent of the trade with North Korea.
    I would just ask unanimous consent for the record, our 
legislation that we introduced identified these 10 businesses 
and said that we are going to cut off access to U.S. markets 
and financial systems as a result of their continued decisions 
to do business with North Korea. When we introduced the 
legislation, I think this is important for members to know, 
when we introduced the legislation, we named and identified 
these 10 businesses. We immediately got contacted by many of 
these businesses.
    I would just ask unanimous consent to submit two of the 
letters we received from the 10 we named, one from China Dawn 
Garment Company talking about their cessation of trade with 
North Korea. This is another letter from another company, 
Rizhao Steel Holding Group. Both have said they will no longer 
do business with North Korea.
    I would just ask this to be submitted for the record.


    [The material referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcript (December 5, 2017)]


    Senator Gardner. We were contacted by others in that top 10 
list. So just the mere fact that the United States Senate 
introduced legislation made a significant difference in terms 
of doing business with North Korea.
    But there is more to do. So the LEED Act is an incredibly 
important part of this. We have to make it clear that you 
either do business with North Korea or you do business with the 
largest economy in the world, the United States. That is what 
this legislation does.
    We have worked with the administration to convince 20 
nations around the globe to downgrade their diplomatic 
relations or cut off trade with Pyongyang. The Philippines was 
the number three trading partner with North Korea. In August, 
they announced that they were cutting off their trade with 
North Korea.
    And this legislation helps promote that idea of complete, 
verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's 
ballistic and nuclear program, and that that is the only 
acceptable outcome of any negotiations.
    That is what we are trying to do. That is why the CVID 
policy is so important.
    And I want to commend Senator Markey for the opportunity to 
work with you. We are going to work on this bill together with 
Senators Van Hollen and Toomey.
    But note that this committee, the Foreign Relations 
Committee, has done such an incredible job. When nobody else 
was paying attention to North Korea, this committee was 
leading. I want to thank all of you for playing a part in that.
    Senator Markey. Will the gentleman yield?
    Senator Gardner. Certainly.
    Senator Markey. And I thank the Senator from Colorado for 
his partnership in working on this legislation.
    I asked the Chinese Ambassador last week, why don't you 
just cut off the oil into North Korea? He said, well, right 
now, the Russians provide oil as well, so what would the point 
be?
    And so they share a border with North Korea, with Russia 
and with China. So the amendment that we were going to propound 
would deal with both of those countries, to make sure that we 
were turning off the spigot, so Russia cynically does not 
undermine our foreign policy goals by increasing the viability 
of Kim's regime, notwithstanding anything that the Chinese did.
    So again, I thank the Senator from Colorado. He has been 
great to work with.
    And I do hope that between now and the floor that we can 
beef this up to be more realistic about what the pressure point 
is on the North Korean economy. And, ultimately, that is the 
slave wages and the oil.
    Senator Gardner. Reclaiming my time, Senator Markey makes a 
good point. We met with Ambassador Thae. Ambassador Thae was 
one of the highest level defectors from North Korea. He was the 
deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom. He said one thing 
about cutting off petroleum to North Korea. He said two 
outcomes would result directly from that action. Number one is 
the collapse of the regime. Number two, if the regime does not 
collapse, they would have to end the nuclear program.
    So I think either of those outcomes certainly set back, if 
not end outright, the nuclear program. It is a very important 
and powerful tool that we still have not flexed yet.
    The Chairman. So we have a hearing, as I understand it, 
immediately hereafter. What I am going to do, if it is okay, is 
just ask that my opening comments be entered into the record, 
as they are written, which is better than I could deliver them.
    [The Chairman Corker's prepared statement follows:]


  Prepared Statement of Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Committee

    We know some of you have had concerns with a couple of today's 
nominees, and we thank you for working with us to bring their 
nominations to a committee vote.
    First, we will consider S. 1118. I would like to commend Senator 
Rubio for his leadership on North Korean human rights along with the 
other cosponsors of the North Korea Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 
2017, including Senators Cardin, Gardner, Menendez and Cruz. At a time 
when the world's attention is on North Korea's destabilizing nuclear 
and ballistic missile activities, it is critical that we also shine a 
light on North Korea's human rights abuses. Since 2004, the North Korea 
Human Rights Act has provided a framework for U.S. and international 
efforts to expose the brutality of the North Korean regime and provide 
much needed assistance to the beleaguered North Korean people, 
including access to information.
    We will also consider S. 1901, the LEED Act. I would like to thank 
Senators Gardner and Markey for introducing this legislation to help 
shape and focus a comprehensive U.S. strategy toward North Korea.
    In addition, I also would like to thank Senator Cardin and his 
staff for working with us to fine tune the substitute amendment and the 
manager's amendment that will serve to complement the Banking 
Committee's recent effort on S.1591, the Otto Warmbier Banking 
Restrictions on North Korea Act of 2017.
    I am proud of the critical role that this committee has played on a 
bi-partisan basis in drawing attention to and providing invaluable 
tools to address the North Korea threat over the past several years, 
including the landmark North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act 
of 2016 under the leadership of Senators Gardner and Menendez.
    I am confident that the LEED Act will also contribute to our 
efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the North Korea crisis.
    We will also consider S. 447, the JUST Act. Senators Baldwin and 
Rubio have worked on this issue for years in order to add clarity to a 
difficult process and provide support to Holocaust families and their 
survivors.
    We also appreciate Senator Cardin's support and help in moving this 
bill. The amendment addresses changes that State requested and I would 
like to thank Senators Cardin, Baldwin, and Rubio for managing it so 
smoothly.
    I also want to thank Senators Casey, Rubio and Wyden for bringing 
S. Res. 150 before the committee, which marks World Press Freedom Day.
    This resolution underscores the fundamental role of a free press 
and draws attention to the fact that journalists doing their job around 
the world are killed, jailed, and subject to harassment.
    Lastly, we will consider S. Res. 139. This resolution condemns 
Iran's state-sponsored persecution of Baha'is and its continued human 
rights violations. We thank Senators Wyden, Rubio, Boozman, and Durbin 
for co-sponsoring this resolution.


    The Chairman. Does anybody else have any other--
    Senator Young. Give me about 20 seconds?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Young. I just want to thank Senators Markey and 
Gardner for their leadership on this effort. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of the LEED Act. I support additional and stronger 
sanctions, as you put forward here, and look forward to 
supporting additional legislation in the future that will 
tighten the economic noose on Kim Jong Un.
    Senator Cardin. And I would ask to be made a cosponsor of 
the just act.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    We will see you all at the hearing. Thank you all so much.
    [Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


  Letters Submitted for the Record by Senator Gardner [Referenced on 
                             pages 208-09]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                  [all]