[Senate Prints 115-31]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress}                                         { S. PRT. 

  2d Session  }        COMMITTEE PRINT   	        { 115-31   

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

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                             Second Session

                   January 3, 2018 to January 3, 2019


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


             Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
34-813 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




              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 meeting can be found
      in the Chairman's and the Ranking Member's opening remarks.
            A summary of the actions taken by the committee 
                precedes the transcript of each meeting.

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page


Tuesday, January 18, 2018........................................     1


Wednesday, February 7, 2018......................................     7


Tuesday, March 20, 2018..........................................    19


Monday, April 23, 2018...........................................    33


Wednesday, May 16, 2018..........................................    55


Tuesday, May 22, 2018............................................    61


Tuesday, June 26, 2018...........................................    77


Tuesday, July 10, 2018...........................................    93


Wednesday, July 11, 2018.........................................   103


Thursday, July 26, 2018..........................................   115


Wednesday, August 22, 2018.......................................   125


Tuesday, September 18, 2018......................................   129


Wednesday, September 26, 2018....................................   133


Wednesday, November28, 2018......................................   157


Thursday, December 13, 2018......................................   177


                                 (iii)

 
                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

    The following Nominations and FSO Lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote

    [An asterisk (*) following a Senator's name indicates a Senator not 
present requested to be recorded as a ``no vote'' through statements 
for the record as agreed to by Chairman Corker and Ranking Member 
Cardin through unanimous consent.]

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Samuel Dale Brownback, of Kansas, to be Ambassador at 
        Large for International Religious Freedom. (Cardin, Menendez, 
        Shaheen, Coons*, Udall*, Kaine, Markey, Merkley*, and Booker* 
        recorded as No)

  Mr. Richard Grenell, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Federal Republic of Germany. (Cardin, Menendez, Udall*, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley*, and Booker* recorded as No)

  Dr. Yleem D. S. Poblete, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Verification and Compliance). (Merkley* and Booker* 
        recorded as No)

  Mr. James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
        Luxembourg. (Cardin, Menendez, Udall*, Kaine, Markey, Merkley*, 
        and Booker* recorded as No)

  Mr. Joel Danies, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Gabonese 
        Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
        compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
        the United States of America to the Democratic Republic of Sao 
        Tome and Principe.

  The Honorable Carlos Trujillo, of Florida, to be Permanent 
        Representative of the United States of America to the 
        Organization of American States, with the rank of Ambassador. 
        (Booker* recorded as No)

                               FSO LISTS

  Alyce S. Ahn, et al., dated January 8, 2018 (PN 1434)

  Priya U. Amin, et al., dated January 8, 2018 (PN 1435)

  Angela P. Aggeler, et al., dated January 8, 2018 (PN 1436), as 
        modified

  Marc Clayton Gilkey, et al., dated January 8, 2018 (PN 1433).

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in 
Room S-116, in 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, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.

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

    The Chairman. I am going to go ahead and call the meeting 
to order, and I know people are on a real short timeframe. 
Thank you for coming. Thank all of you for being here.
    Today we are going to consider a number of nominations and 
four FSO lists. Some of these nominations were reported out 
favorably by the committee last year, but were returned to the 
President and now have been sent back to the Senate for our 
reconsideration. I want to thank our colleagues for helping 
this process along.
    Senator Cardin, would you like to make any comments?

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

    Senator Cardin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I understand 
correctly, it looks like we have four nominees that have been 
previously reported out of this committee. I think they have 
roll call votes. There is opposition to some of the 
nominations.
    What I was going to suggest, if there is no objection by 
the members of the committee, that those that have been 
previously reported out be reported out by voice vote, 
recognizing there is opposition. But since they have already 
been voted out of our committee before, I am prepared to allow 
those to move forward with one voice vote.
    The Chairman. Is there any objection?
    Senator Menendez. Question, reserving the right to object. 
I am not sure who--which are the four you are talking about.
    Senator Cardin. I believe it is----
    The Chairman: Well, actually, it is all of them, is it not?
    Senator Menendez. Oh, it is all of them?
    Voice. It is not Trujillo. Trujillo----
    The Chairman. Trujillo?
    Senator Shaheen. Danies----
    The Chairman. Danies.
    Senator Menendez. Is Brownback one of them?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes.
    The Chairman. Brownback is one of them, yes.
    Senator Menendez. Well, I want to help you move the agenda 
along. I want to speak to Brownback, and I have no problem with 
a voice vote as long as I can be recorded a specific way.
    The Chairman. There is no objection to that whatsoever. So, 
go ahead.
    Senator Cardin. Well, Senator Menendez wants to speak on 
Senator Brownback. I want to speak on Trujillo, not to oppose 
the nomination, but to say my concern. But why do you not go 
first?
    The Chairman. Go ahead, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. I was not here to specifically speak to 
Brownback, so I feel compelled to do so. Let me just say that 
anyone seeking to represent the United States of America has to 
actively champion the values we shape as--that shaped us as a 
Nation, and fundamental human rights, individual liberty, and, 
of course, religious freedom are parts of those. Recognizing 
that people interpret their own faiths differently, the right 
to freely do so is indeed a founding value of the country. But 
we must never allow religion to be used as a pretext for 
persecution or to deny anyone basic rights.
    Around the world, governments and non-state actors use 
religion as a tool of oppression, invoking their oppression in 
the guise of divine inspiration. People of all faiths have 
persecuted all over the world--Christians, Muslims, Jews, 
Baha'i--but I fear that Governor Brownback is narrowly focused 
on protecting Christian minorities. And, more critically, he 
has a troublesome record when it comes to protecting the rights 
of LGBTQ individuals.
    I was deeply disturbed when I read the record, pressed 
multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he could 
not muster a simple and resounding ``no,'' that it is never 
acceptable for a government to imprison or execute an 
individual based on their sexual orientation. So, I cannot in 
good faith support a candidate for the position of ambassador 
at large for religious freedom who does not believe that all 
individuals are created equally in God's image.
    And so, he has refused to say whether or not he believes it 
is acceptable for political leaders to use religion to deny 
women fundamental rights, including access to basic healthcare 
around the world, including in our own country. And under 
Governor Brown's leadership, we see political leaders using 
religious mores to oppress women and deny them basic human 
rights.
    I have a real concern that this is not the type of 
message--I hate to oppose someone who is a former colleague, 
but I feel compelled to do so, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to state my opposition.
    The Chairman. Absolutely, thank you, sir. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Yes, and--on the Honorable Carlos Trujillo, 
who is the nominee for permanent representative to the U.S.--
United States of America to the Organization of American 
States, I intend to support his nomination, but I do want to 
speak to the issue that I originally imposed a hold because I 
am trying to get from the State Department information from 
various missions on their recommendations concerning temporary 
protective status, and the role that the State Department 
played in the designation process.
    Under U.S. law, the Department of Homeland Security is 
required to solicit feedback from relevant U.S. agencies about 
conditions in foreign countries, and whether they merit a TPS 
designation. Normally, this means the State Department. 
However, in the last year, the State Department's role in this 
process has been far from normal.
    Last April, we found out that Secretary Tillerson failed to 
respond to repeated Department of Homeland Security requests 
about Haiti's TPS designation. In November, we learned that 
Secretary Tillerson made a series of recommendations to DHS 
about temporary protective status for Haiti and Central 
American countries that ignored input from our embassies in 
those countries, in turn, politicizing the Department's role in 
the process.
    On November 17th, I requested the State Department provide 
our committee with copies of memos from our embassies and the 
recommendations from the State Department to DHS. My office has 
followed up with this request a dozen times. In December, my 
office informed the State Department that we would hold the 
nomination of Carlos Trujillo as the U.S. Ambassador to OAS 
until we received a response to our oversight request. Still I 
have heard nothing.
    In November, I introduced legislation with Senator Van 
Hollen and Feinstein, the Safe Environment from Countries Under 
Repression and Emergency Act, known as the SECURE Act. This 
legislation would create a pathway to citizenship for TPS 
recipients, and specifically require the Department of State to 
provide its recommendations to DHS at least 90 days before the 
deadline for TPS decisions.
    I am pleased that a bipartisan DREAM Act deal hopefully 
will be acted upon that will help us deal with the TPS issues. 
I have agreed to allow this nomination to go forward today, and 
I intend to vote in support. However, I intend to hold this 
nomination on the floor until the Department responds to my 
request.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a matter in which every member of 
this committee I hope will have your support. Our oversight 
function is very important to this committee to make sure that 
this--determinations of TPS is not politicized. I joined the 
chairman when I found the Obama administration was not doing 
what was right in regards to the TIP report. This is something 
that I feel equally compassionate about that we need to know 
whether this is being politicized or not.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. I thank everyone for their 
cooperation. I would move that we voice vote the entire agenda, 
which is four FSO lists and the six nominees that are before 
us, and then any person who wishes to register a negative is 
free to do so since we are going through a re-process.
    Senator Cardin. I will second your motion.
    The Chairman. All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Thank everyone so much for their cooperation.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman----
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that many 
of us oppose a lot of these individuals, and I do not think our 
views have changed, so the record will reflect how we voted.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be listed 
``no'' on Brownback, Grenell, and Evans.
    Senator Shaheen. I would like to be listed as a ``no'' on 
Brownback.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both for 
cooperating.
    Senator Markey. And is this the time to register your 
disapproval of the nominees, or is that just going to be 
something we submit for the record.
    The Chairman. You have already done it once, but you are 
welcome to do it again now.
    Senator Markey. If I could for the record----
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Markey [continuing]. Be recorded ``no'' on 
Brownback, Grenell, and Evans, please.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Cardin. I have been asked--Senator Coons wants to 
be listed ``no'' on Senator Brownback. And once again, I repeat 
that many of us are--have already been recorded in opposition 
to many of these nominees.
    The Chairman. Thank all of you so much. With that, 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 2:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 2286, Nick Castle Peace Corps Reform Act of 2018, with an 
        amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Murphy to be added as 
        cosponsor)

     Cardin 1st Degree Amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Isakson to 
        be added as cosponsor)

  S. 2060, Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act, with amendments--agreed 
        to by voice vote

    Amendments agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

     Gardner 1st Degree Amendment 1

     Gardner 1st Degree Amendment 2

       Shaheen 2nd Degree 1 to Gardner 1st Degree 2

     Markey 1st Degree Amendment 1 REVISED (Shaheen to be added as 
        cosponsor)

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment 1

  S. Res. 92, Expressing concern over the disappearance of David 
        Sneddon, and for other purposes, without amendment--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  H.R. 1625, Targeted Rewards for the Global Eradication of Human 
        Trafficking Act, with a substitute amendment--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, without amendment--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Peter Hendrick Vrooman, of New York, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Rwanda--agreed to by voice vote.

  Mr. Eric M. Ueland, of Oregon, to be an Under Secretary of State 
        (Management)--agreed to by voice vote (Menendez, Cardin, 
        Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
        Booker recorded as No votes.)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:37 p.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, Paul, 
Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
Booker.

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

    The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
come to order. I want to thank everybody for being here.
    On the front end, I have had the tremendous privilege of 
working with two outstanding Democratic leaders on the 
committee. It has been a hand-in-glove relationship. We have 
worked for the betterment of our country.
    Senator Cardin, you were a great ranking member.
    And Senator Menendez has been a great chairman and a great 
ranking member.
    Have you been ranking member or were you just chairman?
    Senator Menendez. I was, for a little while.
    The Chairman. Okay. I want to welcome you back.
    Senator Menendez. I like it better as chairman. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. For what it's worth, I do, too. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. So we welcome you. And I want to thank both 
of you for the way you and your staffs have worked with us 
throughout, and everyone here on the committee.
    I also want to take a personal note to thank Sarah Downs, 
who has been here since the fall of 2013. She is our senior 
counsel. She is the one that arranges all the nominations and, 
obviously, our business meetings. She is going to be leaving 
tomorrow, hopefully. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Not what was meant, but she is going to be 
Senior Adviser to the Ambassador to France. Tough assignment. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Anyway, we thank you for all your tremendous 
work. We are going to miss you, and we wish you well. I know 
you are both excited and probably a little anxious, but 
congratulations. [Applause.]
    The Chairman. All right, today, we are going to consider 
five pieces of legislation and two nominations. We will 
consider S. 2286, the Nick Castle Peace Corps Reform Act of 
2018.
    Five years ago today, former Peace Corps volunteer Nick 
Castle passed away while serving in China. His tragic death was 
preventable. The proper health care regulations were not 
followed.
    After meeting with his parents 2 years ago, I worked with 
Nick's Senators, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, along with 
Senators Isakson and Coons, on the Nick Castle Peace Corps 
Reform Act. The bill addresses the shortfalls that led to 
Nick's passing, increases transparency and accountability at 
the Peace Corps, and enhances the care volunteers receive while 
serving and after they return.
    I want to thank Senator Cardin for his work on the 
amendment, and I urge all of you to support this important and 
long overdue improvement to the Peace Corps.
    We will also consider S. 2060, the Burma Human Rights and 
Freedom Act. I would like to thank Senators McCain and Cardin 
for introducing this bill to help focus a comprehensive U.S. 
strategy toward Burma, including directly addressing the 
unfolding humanitarian crisis. This bill will help balance 
engagement with the Government of Burma while simultaneously 
holding the military accountable for human rights violations.
    I would like to thank Senator Cardin and his staff for 
working with us on the substitute amendment.
    We will consider S. Res. 92, Expressing concern over the 
disappearance of David Sneddon. I want to convey my sympathy to 
his family for the ongoing uncertainty about their son. The 
resolution calls for continued investigations into David's 
disappearance.
    H.R. 1625, or the TARGET Act, is also on today's agenda. I 
would like to thank Chairman Royce for his continued efforts to 
eliminate human trafficking and to make clear that the 
Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program is available to 
those who provide information leading to the arrest and 
conviction of human traffickers.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 535, the Taiwan Travel Act. 
Taiwan is a good friend and partner of the United States. It is 
critical that we continue to support official engagements 
between the U.S. and Taiwan on issues of mutual interest.
    I want to thank Senators Rubio, Menendez, and Gardner for 
their support of this important and timely bipartisan 
legislation.
    Finally, we will consider the nominations of Peter Vrooman 
to be Ambassador to Rwanda and Eric Ueland to be Under 
Secretary of State for Management.
    Senator Menendez, do you have any comments you would like 
to make?

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just take 
a moment and say I am pleased to be here with you today and the 
rest of the committee. I look forward to a productive year, and 
I am confident, as we have seen in the past, that we can work 
together to address pressing issues in front of the committee, 
including on challenges around the globe, as well as robustly 
fulfilling our responsibility to oversight of the Department of 
State.
    And before I speak to that, I just want to take a moment to 
thank Senator Cardin, who did an exceptional job as the ranking 
member for the last 2 years. I appreciate his steadfast 
efforts, his constant voicing of Democratic concerns about our 
foreign policy, as well as about the State Department. And he 
did it with aplomb and integrity and dignity.
    And, Ben, I want to thank you very much for that period of 
time, so thank you. [Applause.]
    Senator Menendez. Before just going to the agenda, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to take a minute to note that, last week, 
owing to arbitrary staffing cuts and confusing management, 
there is now currently only one--one--career ambassador left at 
the State Department. With the myriad challenges we face in the 
world, it is unconscionable that the administration has left so 
many nominations for critical positions vacant. And it is 
ultimately dangerous to our long-term national security 
interests to have a depleted cadre of seasoned, experienced 
public servants promoting our interests abroad.
    And while I may not always have seen eye-to-eye on every 
issue with Tom Shannon, he dedicated nearly 35 years of his 
life to serving his country and to promoting the interests of 
Americans and American values abroad. I want to thank him for 
his service.
    But I am deeply concerned that we have only now one in that 
category. So I hope that we can move to get the administration 
to robustly begin to power up at the State Department, because 
if we want peaceful tools to be used instead of the necessity 
of force, then we need a robust foreign diplomacy, and that is 
undertaken by the State Department.
    With reference to the bills, the McCain-Cardin Burma bill, 
it is a direct response to the genocide and crimes against 
humanity that have taken place against the Rohingya in Burma, 
and it is a great piece of legislation. I want to thank Senator 
Cardin and Senator McCain for introducing it, and you for 
taking it up.
    We have an opportunity to show the world and, in 
particular, the Burmese military that the United States will 
not ignore these atrocities.
    Mr. Chairman, your Peace Corps bill makes important steps 
to address the critical safety issues faced by Peace Corps 
volunteers, as tragically evident, as you said, by the case of 
Nick Castle and Kate Puzey. And I want to congratulate you and 
Senator Feinstein for your leadership on this issue.
    I support Chairman Royce's TARGET Act, which addresses 
human trafficking. The State Department's program has proven a 
valuable tool in fighting transnational crime, and adding human 
trafficking to the list of eligible crimes, that will allow us 
to leverage this program to bring human traffickers to justice.
    As an original cosponsor of the Taiwan Travel bill, I want 
to thank Senator Rubio for his leadership. Our commitment to 
the people of Taiwan is vital to our national security 
interests, our bonds are bound by shared interests and shared 
common values, including democracy, human rights, the rule of 
law, and a free market economy.
    I appreciate Senator Lee and Senator Coons for their 
important resolution in addressing David Sneddon, tragically, 
who has been missing now for almost 14 years. We know that 
North Korea is believed to have kidnapped nationals from at 
least 12 countries. While we cannot say with confidence that 
North Korea abducted Mr. Sneddon, this resolution directs the 
State Department and the intelligence community to, among other 
things, coordinate investigations with the Governments of 
China, Japan, and South Korea.
    Finally, regarding the nominations on the agenda, I am 
pleased that we are considering the nomination of Peter 
Vrooman, an experienced and accomplished Foreign Service 
Officer with extensive experience in the region. He has served 
multiple tours of duty in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and 
Washington, and I fully support his nomination to be the 
Ambassador to Rwanda.
    I will be voting no on Mr. Ueland's nomination today, just 
as I did last year.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Yes, sir?
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous 
consent I be added as original cosponsor of the Nick Castle 
bill?
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Isakson. And also acknowledge Senator Cardin, 
Senator Coons, and Senator Boxer for their help. That bill and 
the Kate Puzey bill, which is the original bill that the Nick 
Castle bill builds on, improves the health care, the safety, 
and the security for our Peace Corps volunteers.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Without objection, you are added.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, same request that I be added 
as a cosponsor.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy, without objection.
    What I would like to do, because of the numbers we now 
have, is move to the nominations first, if there is no 
objection to that.
    Senator Cardin. Chairman, I just want to make one comment.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Cardin. I am lifting my hold on the nomination of 
Carlos Trujillo. He has already passed our committee, but I had 
a hold on the floor.
    The reason for the hold was that I had requested from the 
State Department information concerning their TPS decisions by 
the different host embassies, particularly as it relates to El 
Salvador and Haiti. And I just really want to report to the 
committee that the State Department made that information 
available.
    I had a chance to review it, and I hope that we will be 
talking about that, because I think it is very informative as 
to the importance of the extension of TPS in regard to those 
countries, and we will have a chance to talk about that at a 
later point.
    But, Mr. Trujillo, who I supported when he passed the 
committee, I hope that the nomination can now be----
    Senator Rubio. May I just have 30 seconds?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Rubio. I want to thank you for that, and I respect 
your prerogative. We have all had to use that tool in the past.
    I think it is important, to the extent possible, Mr. 
Chairman, that we try to get that nomination, because the 
Summit of the Americas is upcoming in April and at a critical 
time in the Western Hemisphere, and it will be important to 
have an Ambassador to the OAS previous to that.
    So yesterday, the dictator in Venezuela announced he will 
be attending, which should be interesting, especially if 
Interpol is in town for his visit. So I think it is important 
the U.S. have a presence there.
    The Chairman. Duly noted. Thank you.
    What we will now do, if it is all right, is move to the 
nomination of Peter Vrooman, Ambassador to Rwanda. It is my 
understanding we can take a voice vote on this.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. He will pass out to the floor.
    And then we have Mr. Ueland, who has been before us in the 
past.
    Yes, ma'am?
    Senator Shaheen. I would like to speak to Mr. Ueland.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Shaheen. I intend to vote no on this nomination.
    As we all know, he has a very important role at the State 
Department in determining day-to-day operations and control 
over resources that are allocated to the State Department. When 
I asked him in the hearing how he viewed his responsibility in 
that role to do what Congress authorized him to do, I was not 
happy with the answer I got.
    And while he has in a later written response given an 
answer that acknowledges he understands his responsibility to 
actually use the resources that are allocated to him by 
Congress, I think his initial response raised real questions. 
So I intend to vote no.
    And beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a pattern 
that we are seeing in this administration. We are seeing it 
with the Russian Sanctions Act and in some other areas, that if 
they don't like what Congress has done or resources that we 
have allocated, their response has been, in some cases, to not 
use those resources at all and to ignore what Congress has 
asked of the administration.
    And I think we have an oversight responsibility. I know you 
take it very seriously. I am sure all the other members of this 
committee do. And I think it is up to us to ensure that, when 
we give a directive or resources, we also have a responsibility 
to ensure that those actually are spent in the way that they 
are directed.
    The Chairman. Duly noted. We have been aware of that for 
some time. Thank you for voicing that.
    And if we could move to a voice vote with recorded noes?
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. Could I just say that everybody on this side 
of the aisle is voting no? Is that okay?
    So the recording secretary understands that every Member on 
the Democratic side has voted no, and it is recorded that way, 
it would be appreciated.
    Thank you all so much for letting us do it in that manner. 
I appreciate the cooperation very much.
    So first, we are going to consider S. 2286, the Nick Castle 
Peace Corps Reform Act of 2018.
    Would you like to make a comment, an additional comment, 
Senator Menendez? Anyone else?
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I promise I will keep it 
short.
    But we have an oversight responsibility that was just 
articulated. Of course, we have a legislative responsibility on 
this committee as well. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for trying 
to build out the authorities bill and get our muscle memory 
going on this committee.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Young. I think you have done everything conceivable 
to make that happen.
    I want to commend Ben for your constructive leadership when 
you were in the top chair there.
    And, Bob, I think you made a number of suggestions I 
actually agreed with to try to broaden the scope and making 
more directive our authorities. I supported every one of your 
amendments to do so.
    It is regrettable. I understand the reason we are not 
moving forward with an authorities bill, however, is because 
there are some holds that have been placed on it. I cannot 
conceive of an NDAA being held up on account of holds.
    My hope would be that, moving forward, if we can work 
through these things together and start to legislate in a 
really big, sort of authorizing way--I have my own priorities. 
GAO recommendations, making sure they are implemented, 
shouldn't be controversial, an NDDS supported in a bipartisan 
way.
    So there are some options that are pretty obvious to us. 
When unanimous consent is not a possibility, then collectively, 
we should support the chairman and others in efforts to try to 
get a floor vote, floor time, on this. If that is not possible, 
we amend it to the NDAA. I think that is worthy of future and 
near-term consideration.
    And then the last possibility is just to bust out things 
that are without great controversy and have more of these 
business meetings, so that the work of our staff members and us 
will not go to waste, because I don't want this just to be an 
oversight committee. I want us to legislate. And perhaps my 
tone is a little intemperate for this committee, but I am 
getting tired of it.
    So again, I really appreciate your leadership, Chairman, 
because I do believe you have done everything. I have to finish 
with that. And you probably share my sentiments, so I yield 
back.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Thank you.
    Senator Menendez. So I appreciate my colleague from 
Indiana's concern, and I appreciate his votes on some of the 
amendments that I offered, which went to some of my concerns 
about State authorization.
    And I also appreciate the importance of State 
authorization. When I was chairman of this committee, I 
actually tried to do that. Unfortunately, I found myself 
stymied by the minority at the time.
    So I agree. It is an important venture. But it is 
especially important when we are looking at a reorganization of 
the State Department, of which we haven't had, from my 
perspective, a lot of transparency, when we are worried about 
the USAID element of how that is or is not incorporated in the 
State Department and its budget, on personnel issues, on 
bureaus like DRL, on some special envoys that I know are 
issues.
    So there are series of concerns, so it is not the concept 
of moving with the State authorization, but actually, what's 
the meat on the bones of that authorization?
    So I look forward to working with you and the chairman and 
others who have been interested in this, and hopefully, we can 
make progress. We will see.
    The Chairman. Thank you both. Certainly, I would love for 
us to move on the State Department authorizations and continue 
to build out.
    I would entertain a motion to consider Senator Cardin's 
amendment by voice vote.
    Moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve the 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 
amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended? 
Second?
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve S. 2286, as amended.
    All in favor will 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 consider S. 2060, the Burma Human Rights and 
Freedom Act.
    Senator Menendez, would you like to speak to that?
    Senator Menendez. I have spoken to them all.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much 
for accommodating this legislation. We talked about it at the 
last business meeting. You agreed to take it up now. I really 
appreciate that.
    The atrocities that are taking place in Burma are well-
documented. There were just mass graves discovered. There 
clearly has been ethnic cleansing. And it is important that we 
speak, and I appreciate your contributions to this.
    And I will point out one other thing, if I might. In the 
Senate rotunda, the Holocaust Museum will be having a photo 
exhibit of the Rohingya Muslim situation. I just call that to 
everyone's attention. The more attention we can pay to this 
issue, the more Americans know about it, the more the 
international community knows about it, the better it is going 
to be for people who are very vulnerable today.
    This legislation takes appropriate action not against the 
people of Burma but against those who are responsible for the 
atrocities, the military, imposing appropriate sanctions and 
providing a way in which we can assist those who have been 
victimized.
    So I thank you very much for your help on this.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Markey. If I can make a brief comment? I really 
praise Senator McCain and Senator Cardin for putting this 
forward.
    Senator Durbin and I traveled to Burma and to Bangladesh. 
We responded to the invitation from Aung San Suu Kyi for the 
world to come and see what was happening. The Government worked 
with us to arrange the trip and, at the last minute, pulled our 
ability to visit the villages and the sites. This has happened 
with other groups coming to inspect.
    I know Senator McCain had wanted to personally go on that 
trip. He was very enthusiastic about it. I wish he had been 
able to join us. He wasn't able to.
    But the circumstances are horrific, and it is a system 
against minorities that has been used by the Government there 
against one minority group after another, burn the village, 
shoot people fleeing, kill children, gang rape women.
    And it is now more in the open because of the fact that 
Burma is more in the open. But in that open relationship with 
the world, we need to stand up as America and say this is 
absolutely unacceptable. We need to partner with Bangladesh to 
support them. We need to ensure safe repatriation. And this 
bill is absolutely an important step to convey that message.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    With that, I will entertain a motion to consider the 
substitute Gardner 1 and 2, Shaheen second degree, revised 
Markey and Paul amendments, en bloc, by voice vote.
    So moved and seconded. The question is on----
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to make 
comments on the amendments now or after adoption?
    The Chairman. Why don't we move through, and then you 
make----
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I have a few concerns about 
the language in the bill. I have two amendments that provide 
quick and easy resolutions. I really appreciate Senator Gardner 
working with me on the energy strategy language to ensure 
starting long-term, economically viable power projects. I 
really appreciate Senator Cardin's office willingness to work 
with me on the language on the economic development strategy.
    So with these commitments to work on these issues, I am not 
going to offer or bring these amendments for a vote today. We 
can quickly address these comments. So I look forward to 
working with you and the ranking member.
    The Chairman. I appreciate so much your willingness to do 
this.
    And since we have begun discussion, Senator Gardner, do you 
want----
    Senator Gardner. Yes, I just want to say, the first 
amendment I will be offering here is dealing with the alarming 
relationship between Burma and North Korea and addressing that, 
making sure that, if that happens, that we move forward with 
sanctions on individuals for that military cooperation between 
the two.
    The second addresses a visit that I had in Naypyidaw with 
Aung San Suu Kyi. Three issues were laid out. If her government 
is going to succeed, the first issue, of course, is the peace 
process. The second issue was electrification. Seventy percent 
of the people of Burma don't have access to reliable energy. 
And for that new administration, this administration to 
succeed, they have to have electrification. This is modeled 
after Electrify Africa, which we put forward.
    I thank Senator Cardin for his work on this, and Senator 
McCain. And that is what the second amendment does.
    So thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Markey. My amendment would strengthen 
accountability measures for sexual and gender-based violence 
perpetrated against the Rohingya by Burmese military, who will 
continue to act with impunity unless they are held accountable 
by the United States and by the world. We need to bridge the 
impunity gap that protects Burma's military and re-victimizes 
Rohingya's survivors.
    The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, other humanitarian 
organizations working with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have 
similarly documented the systematic rape of women and girls by 
Burma's military. Human Rights Watch has noted that because 
Rohingya survivors of sexual and gender-based violence know 
very little about the abusers aside from identifying the abuser 
as a member of a military unit, and are deeply stigmatized, 
existing laws and accountability mechanisms fail to protect the 
victims of such violence.
    Burma's military, however, has exonerated itself, citing 
lack of evidence for mass rape of Rohingya's women and girls. 
After visiting the refugee camps in Bangladesh, Pramila Patten, 
the U.N. Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, 
delivered powerful testimony that widespread and systematic 
sexual violence was commanded, orchestrated, and perpetrated by 
Burma's military as a tool of dehumanization and terror.
    I would suggest that the committee invites Special 
Representative Patten to this committee to testify as to what 
is happening to the women and girls of Burma. The Rohingya 
should have a voice here, and I think it would be a wonderful 
help to those people.
    I thank my colleagues for working with me on this 
amendment, and I urge an aye vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. I would like to be added as a cosponsor to 
Senator Markey's amendment, and also point out that that speaks 
to the importance of the Office of Global Women's Issues within 
the State Department, which has worked over the last 8 years to 
address gender-based violence, and we need it now as much as 
ever. And I so hope that will continue to be part of any 
authorization bill for the State Department.
    Also, it speaks to the importance of passing the 
International Violence Against Women Act, which, again, would 
be designed to help address gender-based violence.
    So I hope the committee will take that up.
    The Chairman. Without objection. Thank you.
    I know we have a motion. Do we have a second?
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve these amendments en bloc.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve S. 2060, as amended.
    All in favor, please say aye.
    [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 consider H.R. 1625, the TARGET Act. I will 
entertain a motion to consider the substitute amendment by 
voice vote. Is there a second?
    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 amended? 
Second?
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve H.R. 1625, 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.
    We will next consider H.R. 535, the Taiwan Travel Act, and 
S. Res. 92, Expressing concern over the disappearance of David 
Sneddon.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, en bloc, by 
voice vote? A second?
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve H.R. 535 and S. Res. 92.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it.
    And that completes our committee's business. Thank you all 
so much for being here promptly.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.


    [Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

    All legislation and amendments were agreed to en bloc by voice 
vote.

  S. Res. 85, A resolution calling on the Government of Iran to fulfill 
        repeated promises of assistance in the case of Robert Levinson, 
        the longest held United States civilian in our Nation's 
        history, with amendments--agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     S. Res. 85 Preamble Amendment

     S. Res 85 Resolving Clause Amendment

  S. Res. 224, A resolution recognizing the 5th anniversary of the 
        death of Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, and commemorating his legacy 
        and commitment to democratic values and principles, with 
        amendments and a substitute amendment--agreed to en bloc by 
        voice vote

     S. Res. 224 Title Amendment

     S. Res. 224 Preamble Amendment

     S. Res. 224 Resolving Clause Amendment

  S. Res. 376, A resolution urging the Governments of Burma and 
        Bangladesh to ensure the safe, dignified, voluntary, and 
        sustainable return of the Rohingya refugees who have been 
        displaced by the campaign of ethnic cleansing conducted by the 
        Burmese military, with amendments and a substitute amendment--
        agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     S. Res. 376 Title Amendment

     S. Res. 376 Preamble Amendment

     S. Res. 376 Resolving Clause Amendment

     S. Res. 376 Cardin 1st Degree 1

  S. Res. 426, A resolution supporting the goals of International 
        Women's Day, with an amendment--agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     S. Res 426 Preamble Amendment

  S. Res. 429, A resolution commemorating the 59th anniversary of 
        Tibet's 1959 uprising as ``Tibetan Rights Day,'' and expressing 
        support for the human rights and religious freedom of the 
        Tibetan people and the Tibetan Buddhist faith community, 
        without amendment--agreed to en bloc by voice vote

  S. Res. 432, A resolution congratulating the Baltic states of 
        Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the 100th anniversary of 
        their declarations of independence, with an amendment--agreed 
        to en bloc by voice vote

     S. Res. 432 Johnson 1st Degree 1

  H.R.1660--Global Health Innovation Act of 2017, without amendment--
        agreed to en bloc by voice vote

                                TREATIES

    All treaties were agreed to en bloc by voice vote.

  Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of 
        America and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, signed at 
        Pristina on March 29, 2016, Treaty Doc. 115-2, without 
        amendment

  Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the 
        Government of the Federated States of Micronesia on the 
        Delimitation of a Maritime Boundary, signed at Koror on August 
        1, 2014, Treaty Doc. 114-13, without amendment

  Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the 
        Government of the Republic of Kiribati on the Delimitation of 
        Maritime Boundaries, signed at Majuro on September 6, 2013, 
        Treaty Doc. 114-13, without amendment

  Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of 
        Serbia on Extradition, signed at Belgrade on August 15, 2016, 
        Treaty Doc. 115-1, without amendment

  United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in 
        International Trade, done at New York on December 12, 2001, and 
        signed by the United States on December 30, 2003, Treaty Doc. 
        114-7, without amendment

                              NOMINATIONS

    All Nominations were agreed to en bloc by voice vote (Booker and 
Merkley recorded as ``no'' on Thompson), except Cairncross who was 
agreed to by roll call vote.

  Mr. Erik Bethel, of Florida, to be United States Alternate Executive 
        Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development for a term of two years--Agreed to en bloc by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Kevin Edward Moley, of Arizona, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs)--Agreed 
        to en bloc by voice vote

  The Honorable Josephine Olsen, of Maryland, to be Director of the 
        Peace Corps--Agreed to en bloc by voice vote

  Mr. Robert Pence, of Virginia, to be the Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Finland--Agreed to en bloc by voice vote

  Dr. Judy Shelton, of Virginia, to be United States Director of the 
        European Bank for Reconstruction and Development--Agreed to en 
        bloc by voice vote

  Mr. Trevor Traina, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Austria--Agreed to en bloc by voice vote

  Ms. Andrea L. Thompson, of South Dakota, to be Under Secretary of 
        State (Arms Control and International Security)--Agreed to en 
        bloc by voice vote (Booker and Merkley recorded as ``no'')

  Ms. Marie Royce, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of State 
        (Educational and Cultural Affairs)--Agreed to en bloc by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Edward Charles Prado, of Texas, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Argentine Republic--Agreed to en bloc by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Sean Cairncross, of Minnesota, to be Chief Executive Officer, 
        Millennium Challenge Corporation--Agreed to by roll call vote 
        (12-9)

          Ayes: Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, 
        Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman (proxy), Paul, and Coons

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Udall, Murphy 
        (proxy), Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 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, Isakson, Paul, Menendez, 
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I will call the committee to order and go 
through the opening comments so that we are able to act when we 
have a quorum. But thank all of you for being here.
    The committee is called to order. Today we are going to 
consider five treaties, seven pieces of legislation, and 10 
nominations. The five treaties we will consider include 
extradition treaties with Serbia and Kosovo, boundary treaties 
with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of 
Kiribati, and the U.N. Convention on 13 the Assignment of 
Receivables in International Trade.
    The extradition treaties with Serbia and Kosovo will update 
the terms and conditions for extradition between the United 
States and these two countries, replacing an existing 1901 
treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Servia. The 
new extradition treaties would replace an outdated list of 
extraditable offenses with a modern ``dual criminality'' 
approach, enabling extradition for offenses like money 
laundering, cybercrimes, and other offenses not listed in the 
1901 treaty. These two treaties are similar in design to the 
Dominican Republic and Chile extradition treaties approved by 
the Senate in the last Congress.
    The boundary treaties with Micronesia and Kiribati would 
formally establish our maritime boundaries in the South Pacific 
Ocean with these two neighboring countries along the lines of 
existing practice. The State Department estimates the new 
boundaries in these treaties would together result in a small 
net gain of the United States' exclusive economic zone with 
respect to these two countries.
    The U.N. Convention on Receivables will reduce legal 
uncertainty for crossborder assignments of receivables in 
international trade. This treaty, which closely follows U.S. 
commercial law, is expected to promote the availability of 
capital and credit for both U.S. small- and medium-sized 
businesses as well as for businesses in developing countries 
that adopt the Convention. The Convention has the strong 
support of the U.S. business community.
    We will consider S. Res. 85, a resolution calling on the 
Government of Iran to fulfill repeated promises of assistance 
in the case of Robert Levinson, the longest-held United States 
civilian in our nation's history. I would like to thank 
Senators Rubio and Nelson for their support of this resolution 
which calls on the Iranian Government to fulfill its repeated 
promises to assist in locating and returning Mr. Levinson to 
his family. And I think his family member--does he serve on 
your staff?
    Senator Menendez.  His son.
    The Chairman. Yeah, his son. We will also consider S. Res. 
224, a resolution recognizing the anniversary of the death of 
Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, and commemorating his legacy and 
commitment to democratic values and principles. I would like to 
thank Senator Durbin for authoring this resolution and Senator 
Menendez for working with us to update the text. I would also 
like to recognize Senators Rubio and Merkley for co-sponsoring 
the resolution.
    We will take up S. Res. 376, a resolution urging the 
Governments of Burma and Bangladesh to ensure the safe, 
dignified, voluntary, and sustainable return of the Rohingya 
refugees who have been displaced by ethnic cleansing conducted 
by the Burmese military. I want to thank Senators Merkley, 
Kaine, Gardner, Rubio, Young, Booker, Coons, and Markey for 
their leadership on U.S. policy towards Burma. The Rohingya 
have suffered to an unimaginable degree, and they should be 
able to return home in a voluntary, safe, and dignified manner.
    S. Res. 426 is a resolution supporting the goals of 
International Women's Day. I think it goes without saying that 
the United States should continue to be a leader in promoting 
the empowerment of women and girls throughout the world, 
including in critical peacemaking and security efforts. I would 
like to thank Senators Shaheen, Collins, Cardin, Coons, and 
Murphy for their leadership on these issues, and I am pleased 
that we are ready to move this resolution through our 
committee.
    S. Res. 429 is a resolution commemorating the 59th 
anniversary of Tibet's 1959 uprising as ``Tibetan Rights Day,'' 
and expressing support for the human rights and religious 
freedom of their people and the Buddhist faith community. I 
would like to thank Senators Leahy, Cruz, Feinstein, and Rubio 
for their support of this important bipartisan resolution.
    We are also going to take up S. Res. 432, a resolution 
congratulating the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania on the 100th anniversary of their declarations of 
independence. I would like to recognize Senators Johnson, 
Murphy, and Risch for their support of this timely resolution.
    Finally, we will consider H.R. 1660, the Global Health 
Innovation Act, which will strengthen USAID's commitment to 
achieving global health goals and increase transparency. I want 
to thank Senator Menendez, Chairman Royce, and Congressman 
Sires for their support of this legislation.
    Senator Menendez, I would like to turn to you for any 
comments you might have.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a 
number of resolutions before us today, and I support their 
swift passage. In particular, I strongly support S. Res. 85, 
which calls on the Government of Iran to fulfill its promises 
of assistance in the case of Robert Levinson. There is no 
question that Tehran knows exactly what happened and where Bob 
is, and they should know that we will never stop until he is 
back in the United States where he belongs. And we continue to 
stand today and always with Bob's family, including his 
daughters Sarah and Samantha who live in New Jersey, and his 
younger son who works in my D.C. office. And I want to thank 
Senators Rubio and Nelson for their vital resolution.
    I am also proud to co-sponsor S. Res. 224, commemorating 
the life of renowned Cuban activist Oswaldo Paya. Paya was one 
of Cuba's most transformational leaders and an individual 
capable of channeling the collective demands of the Cuban 
people for greater freedom and human rights. Tragically, he was 
killed in a July 2012 car crash that many of us expect was done 
by Cuban state security. The Washington Post Editorial Board 
has raised numerous questions about the Cuban Government's role 
in his death. Six years later, his legacy remains strong, and 
it is not surprising that just 2 weeks ago the Cuban Government 
detained and deported two former Latin American presidents that 
were visiting Havana to receive the Oswaldo Paya Award. This 
resolution will help uphold that legacy.
    There are a number of other worthy resolutions on the 
agenda, and I support passage of them all. I salute the members 
who have brought them forth. And, in particular, Mr. Chairman, 
I want to thank you for your willingness to consider H.R. 1660, 
the Global Health Innovation Act of 2017 that Congressman 
Sires, my congressman in New Jersey, is acting as the lead.
    I am pleased that we have before us resolutions of advice 
and consent for five treaties. My understanding is that all of 
these treaties have received the full support of stakeholders 
in the United States who strongly support their passage. These 
are the first treaties to be considered by this committee in 
the 115th Congress, and I hope they will not be the last. 
Treaty consideration is a critical part of our job on this 
committee. They enhance and increase stability in an uncertain 
world. They can deliver material and tangible benefits to the 
United States, its citizens, and its businesses.
    Finally, we have a number of qualified nominations on the 
agenda today, and I support their swift advancement and 
confirmation. However, there is one nominee where I have 
serious concerns, which I want to discuss now.
    Concerning Sean Cairncross' nomination to be CEO of the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, we have recently 
learned about some very troubling developments in the ways that 
a senior leader at MCC, placed there by the Trump 
administration, has spoken to employees about political 
preferences, sexual orientation, and national origin. I 
appreciate that the nominee has said that if confirmed he would 
evaluate and address the matter, both with respect to this 
particular employee and the wider issue of diversity at the 
MCC. Nevertheless, I remain concerned with the nominee's 
complete lack of foreign affairs, international development, 
which is the focus of the MCC, and Federal agency experience.
    Furthermore, I remain troubled by comments the nominee has 
previously made regarding voter registration efforts, claims of 
voter suppression, as well as allegations involving racial 
discrimination. For all of these reasons, I am strongly 
opposing the nomination of Mr. Cairncross, and I will request a 
separate roll call vote on the nominee.
    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I hope we 
can have a discussion on the question of Yemen, and I know 
there are some pending considerations before the committee. And 
I certainly will appreciate that opportunity when the time is 
right.
    The Chairman. Very good. What we might do, without 
objection, is move all five of the treaties and then move to 
additional business. And if there are any members that would 
like to speak to the treaties at this moment--we are going to 
move to other business, but I would be glad to entertain any 
comments.
    Senator Risch.  Briefly, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to your 
direction, I presided over the hearing on all five of those 
treaties. There was bipartisan support for them, and there is 
nothing but peace, and harmony, and tranquility. [Laughter.]
    Senator Risch.  That happened there. I think we should just 
pass them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. If there are no other comments, I would like 
to entertain a motion to approve the resolutions of advice and 
consent to the five treaties on the agenda, en bloc, by voice 
vote.
    Senator Risch.  I so move.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the resolutions of advice and consent.
    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 
resolutions of advice and consent to the treaties are agreed 
to.
    What I would like to do because of the way the vote likely 
will occur--if the ranking member does not object, I would like 
to move to the nomination that is objectionable to some 
members--if I could and go ahead and deal with that, and then 
we will deal with the other business. And I understand that, 
you know, we still have a floor vote for people to express 
themselves also.
    So, with that, I would like to consider the nomination of 
Mr. Cairncross to be Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation. And I assume you want a roll call vote, 
correct?
    Senator Menendez.  We do. I do not know if any member wants 
to speak to it, but I definitely want a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. It does not appear that anyone else wishes to 
speak.
    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?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    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?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Menendez.  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.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12 and the nays are 
9.
    The Chairman. It will be advanced to the floor. Thank you.
    To Senator Menendez's point, I know we had something on the 
floor today that deals with Yemen, and the vote is a vote to 
discharge it from the committee. There has never been anything 
before the committee on this subject, so it is an interesting 
maneuver that is occurring. I do not say that in a pejorative 
way.
    But I did want to say that, and I think people know this, 
Senator Young and Senator Shaheen have introduced a bill 
relative to Yemen. Others may wish to do the same thing, and we 
plan to have a hearing on Yemen. And typically, when we have 
important issues to deal with, we deal with them before the 
committee, we work it through, and we try to advance it to the 
floor.
    So, I just wanted to make people aware that, again, this 
legislation just was produced. I know that they are trying to 
build support. They are working with other members to try to do 
so. Again, there may be other pieces of legislation dealing 
with Yemen. We plan to have a hearing to make sure that we are 
able to deal with it in an appropriate manner.
    I think most of you realize we had an impromptu meeting 
last week because other than people on this committee and maybe 
on Armed Services, very few people know anything about Yemen. I 
mean, it is just not something that most people in the Senate 
are dealing with. That is what this committee does. So, I do 
want to make you aware, number one, of our desire to deal with 
it appropriately through legislation. I cannot say which piece 
that will be, but there will be plenty of people I know 
offering legislation. We plan to have a hearing.
    And I think everyone knows also by this point that we plan 
to have a markup on an AUMF. The date we set is April the 19th. 
I think that date will likely hold. We have been working with 
committee members to deal with an AUMF to revise, change what 
we now have before us from 2001 and 2002. We have been working 
for a long time building support. I know Senator Flake and 
Senator Kaine have led on that, and
    Senator Young and many others have been involved.
    And I just want you to know that I know there is 
frustration by many, including me, regarding our congressional 
prerogatives, and we plan to exercise those, and I think we are 
attempting to do it at the right time. There have been a lot of 
constructive discussions around it. By the way, this was not 
planned because of today's vote. We have been working towards 
this for some time. But I just wanted to make you aware of the 
process.
    And again, this is now an editorial comment, the rest is 
factual. It is somewhat unusual to discharge from a committee 
something straight to the floor that is as serious as this 
issue is. And I hope--and by the way, the administration, as 
you know, says they are not involved in hostilities, so we 
could, in fact, weaken ourselves by passing something that they 
totally disregard because of the regard that most Presidents 
have relative to the act that has been used in the first place.
    So, with that, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Well, Mr. Chairman, thanks for those 
comments, and I just want to make sure that I have it right. 
So, my understanding is that the chair is committed to holding 
a hearing on Yemen.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Menendez.  And that subsequently at some point in 
the reasonable future, the chair is committed to a markup on 
the Shaheen-Young or some version of that.
    The Chairman. Some version of some Yemen bill to deal with 
this issue.
    Senator Menendez.  Okay. And that an AUMF markup will take 
place on April the 19th.
    The Chairman. We have targeted the 19th.
    Senator Menendez.  Okay.
    The Chairman. Believe me, and I hope that it occurs. I do 
not know----
    Senator Menendez.  But we are going to have a markup on the 
AUMF.
    The Chairman. We plan to have a markup in April, that is 
correct.
    Senator Menendez.  Well, Mr. Chairman, that is very helpful 
because I believe in regular order. I believe that the 
committee exists for a reason, and I believe that substantive 
information on critical issues should have an appropriate 
vetting. So, with those commitments, I think it creates for me 
personally a different paradigm about how we proceed forward, 
and I appreciate your commitments to that.
    Senator Shaheen.  I have a question.
    Senator Young.  Please.
    Senator Shaheen.  You go ahead because I will do my 
question with my comments as well.
    Senator Young.  I just want to say a few words on Yemen. I 
am going to give a speech later today on the floor about this 
topic. As a number of folks know, I have been following this 
situation, actively involved in the humanitarian crisis for 
some period of time. We have made significant progress. The Red 
Sea ports are open. We are not seeing the sort of delivery we 
would like, but we are seeing humanitarian delivery.
    Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives have been 
saved.
    But this remains the worst humanitarian crisis in the 
world. It has national security implications to peace, which 
are not natural allies with the Iranians, and have been, I 
believe, radicalized based on all the briefings I have received 
and in addition to ISIS and AQAP. So, we share the same 
objectives. We want to deal with the largest humanitarian 
crisis in the world, and ultimately we want to bring this civil 
war to the end.
    And so, question is how we best achieve this. And so, I 
just think it is important we frame it that way. The Foreign 
Relations Committee ought to be walking point on this. I am so 
glad that I had that reinforced not just by the chairman, but 
the ranking member. We are unified in a bipartisan way in that 
fashion. We also need to make sure that we actually are 
supportive of something that can pass. And, you know, with 
respect to our resolution, I am not wedded to our resolution, 
but I will say this Venn diagram between Republicans, and 
Democrats, and the administration, and, you know, experts on 
this has gotten pretty tight, and we made substantive changes 
in recent days to our resolution. I feel very good about it and 
will look forward to the hearing.
    With respect to the AUMF, that also is important to 
remember. The chairman is holding a hearing on this important 
matter. I think we are at a point between the KaineFlake 
leadership and the chairman's efforts to arrive at some 
compromise. Our office, I believe, has played a constructive 
role in getting us to a point where I think we are going to be 
real close to passage, if not passage, now.
    And I just want to thank Senator Shaheen for her work, you 
know, on this resolution. I thank the chairman and his staff, 
and I will just pass it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And if I could, we are actually planning to 
have a markup, not just a hearing, but a markup to mark up----
    Senator Young.  Yeah. All right, thank you, sir.
    Senator Shaheen.  Well, I appreciate the work that Senator 
Young has done, and I got involved because I shared the concern 
about Yemen, about the humanitarian situation there. I have 
also had a chance to hear from the Armed Services side as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee about what is happening 
there.
    And I have some concerns about the Sanders-Lee approach, 
and so that is why I thought trying to look at what might be a 
more constructive opportunity was worth doing. And I appreciate 
Senator Murphy's working with us over the weekend and both the 
chairman and ranking member working with us to try and see if 
there was something we could all agree to. We have not gotten 
there yet. That may be an opportunity when we look at the 
markup.
    But, Mr. Chairman, in a broader sense, I am very concerned 
about what has been the position of the Senate on both sides--I 
do not think anybody is directly to blame; we cannot blame one 
side or the other--to say that we are not going to take up 
anything that is controversial on the floor of the Senate. And 
I think we need to debate this issue. I am pleased to hear your 
statements today.
    I would hope that Senator McConnell would agree if we take 
something out of this committee that he will actually bring it 
to the floor of the Senate because we have not been doing that. 
And I think it is to the detriment of the challenges facing 
this country, to the detriment of the role of the Senate, and 
it really needs to change. And it really needs to change, and 
it is only going to change if those of us on both sides of the 
aisle actually go to our leadership and say we really think we 
need to change the way we are doing business.
    So, I hope you will advocate--you and Senator Menendez both 
will advocate with leadership that this is an issue we should 
take up on the floor.
    The Chairman.  And I know you were not attributing my 
personal----
    Senator Shaheen.  No, I was not, and I appreciate your 
remarks.
    The Chairman [continuing]. I think that the Banking bill 
last week, just editorially, with no amendments, is pretty 
incredible, so I could not agree more.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
add my thanks to
    Senator Young, Senator Shaheen, the chair, and the ranking 
member for trying to get us to a resolution which we can really 
work through this issue on the committee. I think having a 
hearing, really positive step forward. Making sure that we end 
up getting legislation that can pass, get Republican and 
Democratic support, but also will change the situation on the 
ground in Yemen is critical.
    I do not think it is worthwhile for us to pass something 
that is going to have no effect. It is going to have 
certifications that the administration can very easily make and 
allow for this situation to continue. And I think that is what 
we were trying to work through this weekend is trying to find a 
way to get a resolution that has actual teeth in it, that is 
going to cause the Saudis to do what they have been telling us 
they were going to do for a long time, but just frankly have 
not. Change the way in which they are operating this campaign 
to preserve civilian life and actually get to a political 
settlement.
    So, I really thank the Chairman and ranking member for 
putting us on a path where we can try to get something that 
ultimately can change the situation on the ground. And I would 
argue the strong vote today in favor of, at the very least, 
debating the question of whether or not we have proper 
statutory authorization to continue this involvement will be 
part of what puts pressure on the Saudis to change their 
position.
    But I just wanted to add my thanks.
    The Chairman. Well, I hope we have a great debate, but do 
not discharge it from the committee because, in essence, we 
will be weakening the United States Senate if we do that. And I 
think the administration's position is we are not involved in 
conflict.
    Senator Young.  Ten seconds. Since you made reference to 
the resolution, it has been really good to work with you on 
this legislation. It is our job to oversee the implementation 
of the resolution, proper vetting and certification process 
after the fact, so there is no such thing as a perfect bill or 
perfect legislation. So, that is what gives us leverage is 
ensuring this team vision.
    The Chairman.  Any other--and thank you for your tremendous 
knowledge about what is happening in Yemen.
    With that, what I thought I would do is move to regular 
order that we have before us. I would like to consider--we 
checked with every office and had no pushback on this. I would 
like to consider all of the legislative items together and 
agree to all of the amendments. To my knowledge, everyone is in 
agreement with that. So, without objection, let us do that.
    The committee will consider H.R. 1660, S. Res. 85, S. Res. 
224, S. Res. 376, S. Res. 426, S. Res. 429, and S. Res. 432, en 
bloc, and each of the noticed Corker amendments to these items 
and the noticed Cardin amendment to S. Res. 376 and the noticed 
Johnson amendment to S. Res. 432 will be considered approved.
    Would any members like to give additional comments?
    Senator Merkley.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
thank everyone for getting involved in this resolution 
regarding Burma and the horrific, horrific ethnic cleansing 
that is going on there. Special thanks to the co-sponsor from 
the Republican side, Senator Young, as well as five other 
Republicans who have joined in along with the Democrats.
    This issue of what is going on there is now--the most 
recent reports is the Government of Burma is going in, they are 
bulldozing those villages. They are starting to build 
structures to prepare for non-Rohingya to reoccupy that land, 
kind of a--if this is not ethnic cleansing, I do not what in 
the world is not. We have systematic rape, shooting, burning, 
slaughter of children, driving 700,000 people into Bangladesh.
    Bangladesh has a big challenge. This resolution thanks them 
for opening their doors, but realize they have no room. This is 
a country half the size of Oregon that is Bangladesh, that part 
of the year half of that country is flooded, so it is a quarter 
the size, and they have 160 million people living in Bangladesh 
already.
    Calling and pushing for the ability, the appropriate 
ability to return to their villages, be treated as full 
participants in Burma is the right thing to do. I appreciate 
everyone stepping in to do this together. And let us keep 
pushing, and let us try to ensure our executive branch also 
keeps pushing to highlight this, to show American humanitarian 
leadership in the world and say this type of conduct is 
absolutely unacceptable.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thanks for going to the area and 
your leadership on this issue. Any other comments?
    Senator Shaheen.  You are taking comments on any of the 
resolutions?
    The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Shaheen.  I just want to, again, say I hope that we 
will pass the resolution on International Women's Day. It was 
March the 8th. And I think it is important to continue to 
recognize the role of women worldwide and the difference that 
empowering women makes in our economic and national security 
interests. And remind everybody that this is a bipartisan 
resolution and appreciate that Senator Collins is co-
sponsoring.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and thanks for your leadership as 
always. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, is there a motion to approve H.R. 
1660 and the noticed resolutions, as amended by the noticed 
amendments, en bloc, 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 H.R. 1660 and the noticed resolutions, as 
amended.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it and the 
legislation, as amended, is approved.
    Now we are going to move to the non-controversial 
nominations as I understand them: Mr. Erik Bethel to be 
Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development; the Honorable Kevin Moley to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization 
Affairs; the Honorable Josephine Olsen to be the Director of 
the Peace Corps; Mr. Robert Pence to be Ambassador to Finland; 
Dr. Judy Shelton to be the U.S. Director of the European Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development; Mr. Trevor Traina to be 
Ambassador to Austria; Ms. Andrea Thompson to be Undersecretary 
of State for Arms Control and International Security; Ms. Marie 
Royce to be Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and 
Cultural Affairs; and the Honorable Edward Charles Prado to be 
Ambassador to Argentina.
    Is there a motion to approve these nominations, en bloc, by 
voice vote?
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Risch.  Second.
    The Chairman. Moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the nominations.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it.
    This completes our committee's business.
    Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, could I please be recognized 
as a ``no'' on Andrea Thompson?
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman, myself as well.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Merkley.  Thank you.
    The Chairman. Without any other comments, this 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 stands 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                           BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, to be Secretary of State--
        agreed to by roll call vote (11-9-1)

    Vote No. 1--to report favorably--defeated (members present: 10-10)

          Yeas (11): Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, 
        Young, Barrasso, Isakson (Proxy), Portman, Paul

          Nays (10): Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker

    Vote No. 2--to report favorably--agreed to by roll call vote (11-9-
        1)

          Yeas (11): Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, 
        Young, Barrasso, Isakson (Proxy), Portman, Paul

          Nays (9): Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker

          Present (1): Coons

    The following Nominations and FSO Lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote, as modified

  Mr. Thomas J. Hushek, of Wisconsin, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of South Sudan

  Ms. Kirsten Dawn Madison, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs)

                               FSO LISTS

  Robert F. Grech, dated January 8, 2018 (PN 1436-2)

  Karen S. Sliter, et al., dated February 13, 2018 (PN 1634)

  Tuyvan Nguyen, dated March 12, 2018 (PN 1742)

  Benjamin Thomas Ardell, et al., dated March 12, 2018 (PN 1744), as 
        modified

  Abigail Marie Nguema, dated March 12, 2018 (PN 1745)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:10 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, Portman, Paul, 
Menendez, Cardin, 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. We pride ourselves on starting meetings exactly on time. 
We have had a few entrepreneurial things happen over the last 
few minutes, and, therefore, we were discussing a way forward 
for this.
    So, the committee will come to order. Today we are going to 
discuss the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be the next Secretary 
of State. We are also going to consider two other nominations 
and five Foreign Service officer lists.
    I am going to make some comments about our nominee and ask 
Senator Menendez to do the same. And then I would ask other 
members who wish to speak to the nomination to do so when the 
actual--when the actual vote takes place. I know that everyone 
has--most everyone has sent out a statement. Hopefully not 
everyone will need to speak, but I certainly want to 
accommodate people who wish to do so.
    Before speaking in support of our Secretary of State 
nominee, I want to talk a little bit about our committee very 
briefly. This committee was established in 1816 as one of the 
original standing committees of the Senate. We hold 
jurisdiction over legislation concerning the conduct of U.S. 
foreign policy, including foreign assistance, treaties, 
declarations of war, among other matters. We are also 
responsible for the oversight of the State Department, review 
executive branch nominations that carry out U.S. policy, 
including the Secretary of State.
    And as we know, this committee has been an island in a sea 
of partisanship. We have continued to conduct our business in a 
very bipartisan way always--always--beginning with Republicans 
and Democrats working together to come to a good end.
    I want to give a little history on nomination votes. John 
Kerry was confirmed by a vote of 94 to 3 on the Senate floor. 
This committee favorably reported his nomination unanimously. 
Hillary Clinton was confirmed by a vote of 94 to 2 on the 
Senate floor. We voted her out 16 to 1. Condoleezza Rice was 
confirmed by a vote of 85 to 13 on the Senate floor. This 
committee favorably reported her nomination 16 to 2. Both this 
committee and the full Senate unanimously voted in favor of 
Colin Powell's nomination.
    Now, to our nominee and to his qualifications. He graduated 
first in his class at West Point. First in his class. He served 
our Nation in uniform as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron 
Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And as he testified 
in this committee, it was there he learned the power of 
diplomacy and the effect that we can have on the world through 
appropriate diplomacy.
    I think all of us know those men and women who have worn 
the uniform, the people that we hold on the highest pedestal, 
we know that they more than anyone respect diplomacy because 
they know if it is successful, it is the thing that keeps our 
men and women out of harm's way. Mike Pompeo knows that, he 
stated that clearly with conviction, and I think we all know 
that.
    He graduated from Harvard Law School having been an editor 
of The Harvard Law Review. That was after serving in the 
military. He founded his own company, serving as CEO for more 
than a decade, and later served as president of a second 
company. He was elected 4 times to the House of Representatives 
where he served the people of Kansas and the 4th District.
    Let me say this. I know that some things have been said 
about comments made during his service and on campaigns. I 
would imagine that all of us have said some things in hot 
moments. I have to believe absolutely that Secretary Clinton 
when she ran for President, Secretary Kerry when he ran for 
President, had to have said some things that maybe would have 
met the objection of people on the other side of the aisle, but 
they were confirmed overwhelmingly.
    For the last 15 months, he served our Nation as director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency. There is probably no one in 
the United States that knows more about what is happening 
around the world today than Mike Pompeo. He has developed a 
culture there. He meets with the employees there. We know the 
State Department has tremendous issues right now with culture. 
We know that, and we know he has built the kind of culture at 
the CIA where the employees at the State Department are anxious 
to have him there. They know what he has done at the CIA. Many 
people on both sides of the aisle have lavished praise on him 
for what he has done there. He knows how to develop the kind of 
culture at the State Department to leverage--to leverage.
    I have to say one other thing. The last two Secretaries of 
State were my friends. I am talking about in the previous 
administration. Actually, the last three Secretaries of State 
have been my friends. One of the things that they have lacked, 
I think it is widely acknowledged, is they did not really have 
a good relationship with the President. Each of them made sure 
that we knew that they felt differently about what was 
happening than what was happening. So, this will be the first 
time in four nominees that we actually have a nominee that has 
a relationship with the President where the President listens 
to what they have to say.
    So, with that, I just want to say I cannot imagine, and I 
maybe I overstated that last point. Let me just put it this 
way. He has a very good relationship with the President. That 
is somewhat different than the last three Secretaries of State 
that we have had. So, let me just say I cannot imagine--I 
cannot imagine having someone more qualified to be Secretary of 
State.
    I know that--I know what the outcome is possibly going to 
be here today, and there is a lot I could say, but I do not 
want to say it. I do not want to harden positions. We have got 
tremendous amounts of work to do together. I understand the 
climate that we are in. I understand the polarization that we 
have as a Nation. And I am hopeful that yet this evening that 
we are going to do something positive for our Nation and handle 
ourselves in a manner that sends the right signal.
    There is a NATO meeting Friday. This will be the first time 
I think that we will have not had a Secretary of State at a 
meeting like this in modern times. And so, I am hopeful that 
tonight we will be successful in sending him out. I am hopeful 
that we will be successful on the floor this week in confirming 
him. I strongly support this nominee. I cannot imagine us 
having a more currently qualified Secretary of State, and I 
urge all of us to vote yes.
    And with that, I will turn to my friend, our distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Menendez.

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

    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, let me say a few things 
about the nominee. But before I do, let me just say that the 
Democrats on this committee have overwhelmingly worked with you 
in moving nominations, in being a constructive part of 
hearings, and voting for a wide range of nominations. Many of 
us, including myself, have voted for the President's nominees 
for Cabinet members from the Secretary of Defense to the 
previous Secretary of Homeland Security, now the chief of 
staff, to the President, to the Small Business Administrator, 
to the Transportation Secretary. So, this suggestion that there 
is partisanship simply because you do not support a nominee is 
ridiculous based upon the facts.
    And it is not the Article I rights of the Congress which, 
as you know from the previous administration and my comments, 
very strongly as it relates to the previous administration on 
some issues, that I believed strongly that the Congress plays a 
vital role in the check and balance on any executive branch. 
And I believe that regardless of who is sitting in the White 
House. That is what Article I is all about.
    Now, I am genuinely disappointed to have to cast a vote 
against a Secretary of State nominee, but at the end of the day 
as I considered Director Pompeo's nomination, including his 
hearing, his past statements, his recent revelations, I do not 
have a satisfactory answer to the question, which Mike Pompeo 
am I voting on.
    Unfortunately, during his hearing, Director Pompeo offered 
contradictory statements. He was less than forthcoming when he 
was pressed on a number of issues. Given the opportunity to 
outline the strategies he would advocate to the President and 
to the country to deal with Russia, with Iran, with North 
Korea, with China, or Venezuela, he failed to exhibit the depth 
of knowledge or thoughtfulness about what those strategies 
would be. Clearly any nominee would know that those would be 
hot spots in the world which would have to be addressed before 
the committee.
    Truthfulness and the willingness to be forthcoming to this 
committee are essential, in my view, for a Secretary of State 
nominee. But on both his interview with Special Counsel Mueller 
about Russia and his nondisclosure of his trip to North Korea, 
even in a classified setting where he would have that 
opportunity, both critical issues before this committee, both 
issues on which members on both sides of the aisle peppered him 
with questions, he exhibited that he was suited more to be the 
CIA Director than the Secretary of State because he wanted to 
be clandestine at the end of the day.
    I do not expect a Cabinet Secretary to publicly disagree 
with the President. Indeed, it is his or her duty to carry out 
the President's agenda. But as policies are being worked out, I 
remain skeptical of the kind of diplomat that Director Pompeo 
would be, whether he would be willing to push back on the 
President's worst instincts, whether he would be willing to say 
no, or whether he would simply be a yes man.
    When the President blames Russia's aggressive behavior on 
Democrats--on Democrats--will Director Pompeo remind him that 
Russia's aggressive behavior is about Russia and its attacks 
upon our country, something that does not seem to be able to 
come out of the lips of the President? When the President wants 
to call Mexicans drug traffickers and rapists, as our Nation's 
top diplomat, would Director Pompeo advise him not to, or would 
Pompeo, who once called a political opponent a ``turban 
topper,'' prevail?
    As our Nation's top diplomat, would Director Pompeo 
genuinely promote American values of universal equality and 
individual human dignity, or will we be represented by 
Congressman Pompeo who voted against the Violence Against 
Women's Act to deny support to victims of gender-based 
violence, and sponsored legislation to roll back marriage 
equality?
    As I have said before, I believe it is imperative for the 
Secretary of State to be forthright, to be someone in whom the 
American people and our allies can vest faith and trust. 
Unfortunately, I do not believe Director Pompeo is someone who 
will always prioritize diplomacy over conflict, particularly in 
the context of the aggressive foreign policy voices growing 
around him. I am particularly concerned because of his past 
comments on regime change in North Korea and Iran, for example.
    So, these are the legitimate concerns that I and many of my 
colleagues have. They can express their own views as to why. 
And I appreciate that in your comments, Mr. Chairman, you say 
that Director Pompeo has a great relationship with the 
President. I do believe that being able to speak on behalf of 
the President and not be undercut, as his former Secretary of 
State was, is important. But does that great relationship mean 
that you value the relationship more than the truth? Does that 
great relationship have you hesitant to push back and say, Mr. 
President, this is not the best way to proceed? I wonder.
    Now, we did not choose that there is a NATO meeting this 
Friday. We did not choose on the timing of when the President 
fired Secretary of State Tillerson. We did not choose as to 
when he nominated Director Pompeo. We did not choose as to when 
Director Pompeo got all his information on his questionnaire. 
We did not choose when he got his answers to the questions that 
were proffered to him by members of the committee. So, while I 
appreciate that there is a NATO summit, it is, I think, not 
fair to suggest that that is the essence of why we have to cast 
an affirmative vote for a nominee who otherwise, in the view of 
many of us, is flawed.
    And, you know, I would just say we cleared today's vote. We 
cleared a second meeting in case there was a need for a second 
meeting tomorrow. You know, some people said they were voting 
no. Maybe they are voting yes today. But the bottom line is in 
anticipation, in order to give a fair opportunity to this 
nominee, we cleared a meeting notice today. We cleared a 
meeting notice for tomorrow, too.
    I think putting that all in context is important for people 
to understand. This is not about simply being adversarial to 
the President. This is about the due diligence of Article I and 
the views as to whether or not this is a Secretary of State 
nominee who deserves the votes of each and every member.
    The Chairman. I do not normally do this. We have some 
people, though, that are in traffic on both sides of the aisle, 
and I want to accommodate them. I know this is an important 
vote for all members. So, we typically would make comments at 
the time of vote. I know that there are members that want to 
speak to this nominee, and what I would like to do is go ahead 
begin doing that, and we will take care of some of the minor 
business if we complete that and they are still not here. But, 
again, I am more than glad to hear from other members on this 
nomination.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that 
I am a little surprised to hear Senator Menendez say that he is 
holding the trip that Mr. Pompeo made to North Korea against 
him because he was acting more like a CIA Director than a 
Secretary of State. Well, he is the CIA Director, and the 
President of the United States tasked him to do a job, and he 
did it and did it well.
    Let me say that obviously I am going to vote for Mike 
Pompeo, but I look at the service here in the United States 
Senate a little differently, through a different prism, I 
think, than a lot of people do. Three of my committees are this 
committee, Intelligence, and the Ethics Committee. And I see a 
tremendous amount of bipartisanship on those committees that no 
one ever sees. And I tell people that on those issues that come 
before those three committees, we really do act in a bipartisan 
nature.
    I am concerned that the vote here today is a step backwards 
for this committee in this regard. As the chairman pointed out, 
the two Secretaries of State that President Obama had from a 
philosophical standpoint could not be more diametrically 
opposed from the philosophical view I have of the world, and 
yet I voted for both of those nominees because I believe that 
the President of the United States has the right to choose 
these people. And under normal circumstances, there really is 
not any reason not to allow him to have the national security 
team around him that he chooses.
    As far as Mike Pompeo is concerned, obviously a lot of us 
worked with him when he was in the House. But on top of that, 
Senator Rubio and I are the only two members of this committee 
that sit on the Intelligence Committee as well as here, and we 
have worked with a number of CIA directors. And I can tell you 
that the work of the Intelligence Committee is very much tied 
to an oversight role, and that oversight role only happens when 
you have a director who is very forthcoming. Obviously, there 
are 17 intelligence agencies, but the CIA is arguably the most 
robust one of the bunch and the one that needs the oversight.
    Mike Pompeo has been incredibly helpful to us on that 
committee. He has been very forthcoming. I have never seen him 
drag his feet at all withholding information from members of 
that committee who have to make a decision on oversight 
matters.
    So, I cannot think of anyone that I would feel more 
comfortable with as far as knowing what is going on in the 
world today. We all get a lot of that here, but when you sit on 
the Intelligence Committee, you drill down deep into the weeds, 
particularly in the trouble spots. Mike Pompeo knows that 
backwards, forwards, and inside out. He will be speaking for 
the President when he travels. He is the appropriate person for 
that. I will be voting yes. Thank you, Mr.--thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation 
faces serious challenges around the world. I do not think 
anybody would dispute that: the dangers of North Korea, the 
dangers of Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, China Seas. We have 
tremendous challenges. We also have a President who conducts 
foreign policy in a different way. I think we would agree to 
that.
    So, that is why it is critically important that the 
Secretary of State be an independent voice in the White House. 
And I must tell you, listening to his testimony before our 
committee, looking through those answers to the questions for 
the record and the personal meetings I had with him, I am 
concerned about that. And let me just give you a couple 
examples.
    We want the Secretary of State to be the chief diplomat for 
America. Diplomacy must always be first in his--in his mind. 
And yet when we asked him questions--when I asked him questions 
and others did on a couple of critical issues, he gives answers 
that is anything but putting diplomacy first. And he is the CIA 
director, so I assume he knows pretty much a lot about Europe, 
and what is happening with Iran, and how our allies feel, and 
the need for the United States to engage internationally. I 
assume that he heard our Joint Chief say that if the United 
States were to unilaterally pull out of the Iran agreement 
without--with Iran being in compliance, that that would make it 
extremely difficult for America to be able to enter into 
agreements that countries would have confidence in, referring 
to North Korea.
    So, as the person who wants to be our chief diplomat, it 
was hard for me to understand how he could prefer the United 
States pulling out of the Iran agreement with the Europeans 
disagreeing with our decision. I specifically asked him that 
question. Obviously if we had the support of Europe, it is a 
different story. But he made it very clear that it would be 
okay for the United States to act on its own in regards to 
pulling out of the Iran agreement.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, you know, you and I agreed we did not 
like the agreement, but I would hope that we would all agree we 
do not want the United States to be isolated particularly if 
Iran is in compliance. And as we have talked to our diplomats, 
I think they all agree that we need to be engaged diplomacy. 
That is a pretty fundamental point.
    The second point, and Secretary Tillerson was pretty direct 
about this, about the United States participating in the 
climate talks, the climate talks are interesting because they 
are a voluntary compliance to individually set goals in which 
the President could change at any time. But the President has 
chosen to withdraw from the Paris climate talks, the only 
country in the world. And I know it is the President's call, 
and I said that directly to Mr. Pompeo. It is the President's 
call. You follow the President's instructions, I understand 
that, but how do you feel about it? And he said very clearly he 
agrees that the United States should withdraw from these 
conversations.
    So, I think all those raise fundamental questions. And I 
know, Mr. Chairman, we all say things we do not--that we wish 
we did not say, but Mr. Pompeo did not retract the statements 
he said about Muslim leaders, which is find to be very 
troublesome in trying to have the next Secretary of State who 
will be representing our country to the world that is very 
diverse.
    So, I just really want to sort of end on this point. I do 
not question the motive of any member of this committee as to 
how you vote on any of the nominations that are before you. I 
have the deepest respect for every single member of this 
committee, and I mean that sincerely, and there are many issues 
that go into making those decisions. So, I do not accuse you of 
any partisan politics as to how you decide to vote on this 
nominee, and I hope you would respect the way we go about--I go 
about making my decisions on a nominee because I spend a lot of 
time, particularly on a Secretary of State, to come to a 
judgment.
    I take Article I responsibilities very seriously, advice 
and consent to the President of the United States, and I think 
it is important each one of us exercise that independent 
judgment. That is also part of the tradition of this great 
committee. And, yes, I am proud that this committee has put our 
national security first ahead of partisan politics over and 
over and over again, and I expect that we will continue to do 
that. We have to make a decision today, and I respect the way 
each of us make that decision.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually am in a 
unique position. I considered voting against the two previous 
Secretary of State nominees, John Kerry, who I had worked 
with--he sat right in that chair--because I disagreed with him 
on many public policy decisions and, in fact, went forward and 
did many of the things that I thought he might do as Secretary 
of State. And then Rex Tillerson, who was here for us not long 
ago. I was not comfortable that he was committed to human 
rights the way I wanted him to be committed and among some 
other things. And in both instances, it caused me to kind of go 
back and review what it is our function is, and perhaps that 
is--I am not saying--perhaps I am wrong about what I think what 
our function is.
    But I will share what I hope and believe our function 
should be when we talk about advice and consent because on the 
one hand, there are those who argue that our role is to sort of 
vote for people based on whether or not they are the kind of 
person we would have picked if we were President, and the other 
is whether our job is to basically vet the President's 
preference to see if they are qualified and capable in making 
sure there is nothing disqualifying against them, and then also 
with a view, however, that the more important the position, the 
more deference a President should deserve. So, if this was a 
sub-secretary of something, the standard might not be as 
deferential as it would be someone who is actually in the line 
of succession and also works directly with the President.
    The chairman has already outlined, when it comes to 
qualifications, irrespective of whether or not we may agree 
with him on public policy, I do not think anyone could make a 
credible argument that Mike Pompeo is not intellectually 
qualified and does not bring experience to this position that I 
think are on par with any of the recent nominees that have been 
offered up to this post, and, in many cases, exceeds it.
    The chairman pointed out he graduated top of his class at 
West Point, which we all know what that means. Not only that, 
he graduated from Harvard, very high. He was actually the 
editor of the Law Review, which for those who have gone to law 
school, know it is a pretty prestigious spot in which to land. 
Then he was successful in business, then he was a successful 
member of Congress despite the seniority system that exists 
there, and now at the CIA where Senator Risch has just pointed 
out. Whether you like his views on issues or not, I can tell 
you the intelligence community has faced some very difficult 
times publicly and internally in the last couple years. He has 
done a phenomenal job at least in leading the organization from 
a morale standpoint, a personnel standpoint. If he had not 
been, I assure you we would have been hearing a lot about it in 
regards to this.
    So, what it boils down to, and some of the arguments I 
hear, and obviously we are all entitled to arrive at our 
position through different criteria. But the arguments I have 
heard in opposition to him is I just I do not agree with him on 
a--on a public policy. And the problem is the President is 
entitled to have people in his Cabinet that agree with him or 
share his world view on public policy.
    Imagine for a moment if any of us were required to assemble 
a Senate staff, which is not a Cabinet post, but we were forced 
to take staffers not only that disagreed with us, but were 
willing to do publicly in forums such as this for purpose--even 
before they came to work for us. So, it is a very difficult 
spot to be in. I just personally believe that assuming that 
someone is qualified and there is no disqualifying aspects of 
them, ethical or otherwise, that the President deserves to have 
a Secretary of State that agrees with him or her in general on 
a foreign policy direction. It is the only way they can be 
expected to conduct the foreign policy of this country.
    And I would add to that one more point, which the chairman 
also pointed to, and that is how critical it is that when a 
Secretary of State travels abroad and meets with someone on 
behalf of the United States, that the person on the other side 
realizes that this is someone who has the President's ear and 
the President trusts and listens to. They are not just there 
symbolically. They are truly someone that has a relationship 
with the President and that is incredibly important in order to 
be successful.
    So, I would urge everyone to support him. I truly do not--
cannot imagine a better nominee at this moment in the universe 
of people out there that is available. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I would like for it to be noted that if I 
were to call the vote right now, which I can do, we would vote 
him out positively. Now, Senator Coons is not here, and we 
operate in good faith. So, I am going to wait and hold the vote 
until he gets here. I know it is important for him. His flight 
to Washington was cancelled.
    So, I just want everyone to understand I could call the 
vote right now, and he would be voted out positively based on 
what I know members are going to do, but I am going to wait 
until Coons gets here. But after we vote, because Johnny 
Isakson is not here, I am also going to be asking for an 
indulgence. But just note--let it be noted we are a committee 
that acts in good faith with each other. I told Senator Coons 
that I would wait until he was here to have the vote.
    Does anyone else wish to speak? Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to 
relitigate Mike Pompeo's qualifications or not, but I do want 
to raise the concern that Senator Cardin raised about motives. 
I do not think it is in any of our interest to question each 
other's motives for how we made a decision and for what we view 
as our responsibilities on this committee. So, I would--you 
talked about the number of nominees who had very high numbers 
of votes from the Senate. There are a number of people who I 
can think of who this President could have nominated who I 
would be very happy to vote for.
    So, I think it is hard to make that case and that we are 
all better off if we assume that we are each trying to act in 
good faith on these nominees, and not call into question 
people's motives for making decisions.
    The Chairman. I agree a hundred percent. Does anyone else 
wish to speak?
    Senator Johnson. If we are going to keep going with 
speeches, I will speak in order.
    The Chairman. Well, I do not really--now that we have--I do 
not known of any other member that is coming, so we no longer 
need to prolong this, but if people wish to----
    Senator Johnson. Well, I say let us vote.
    The Chairman. I know there is a member----
    Senator Johnson. Let us do it afterwards, though. I mean, 
otherwise I will speak in turn.
    The Chairman. That is fine. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. We have been at war for too long and in too 
many places, and I think that if we are ever to have less war, 
we must come to understand that regime change does not work, 
that often regime change has actually made things worse. And 
so, as many of you know, I have been opposed to this nomination 
for a long time. To me, the most important event in foreign 
policy of the past two decades has been the Iraq War, and the 
President has repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly for years even 
before he was a candidate said the Iraq War was a mistake.
    To me, it is the one thing you have to understand if we are 
to move forward, that the Iraq War was a mistake. Regime change 
in Iraq made things worse. It emboldened Iran, made Iran worse, 
and all the same people who wanted to go war in Iraq now want 
to go to war in Iran. But regime change did not make us safer. 
It made the world and the Middle East more chaotic.
    We did the same thing in Libya, for goodness sakes. You 
know, there are many who are saying, well, we have to topple to 
Assad. We cannot get rid of ISIS until we topple Assad, and 
then it turns out that when we turned our attention from Assad 
to ISIS, we actually did get rid of ISIS. Regime change has not 
worked.
    I have somewhat jokingly said, oh, when Gaddafi is gone, 
what are they going to do, elect Jefferson? They do not have 
Jefferson. They do not have a history of our Western mores or 
Western ideas of democracy. We are not getting better, and 
sometimes we get worse. One of our Iran's best allies or Iraq's 
best ally now is Iran, maybe sometimes more so than us.
    So, we have to understand the backfire. The President 
understood this, and my fear has always been that Director 
Pompeo does not share that point of view. I asked him here, and 
he said, oh, it was a long time ago. But I have talked to him 
again, and again, and again, and I have talked to the President 
again, and again, and again. And what I hear from the President 
is no one is changing his mind. Many of these wars were ill-
advised, and his goal is really to get us out of many of these 
wars. That is a goal I share. And so, I actually want Trump to 
be Trump. I want people around him who actually will give him 
the advice and not try to persuade him that perpetual war is 
the answer to things.
    We all have a variety of opinions and beliefs on whether we 
think--which way the President is going, in a good direction or 
bad. Some on my side would like to go and stay forever. But I 
want people to understand not only in the country, but I hope 
the director will understand this, and he assures me that, 
yeah, he does understand that the Iraq War was a mistake. I 
would like to hear it a little bit more verbally to others 
other than myself, but that is what I am hearing. I am hearing 
that from the President.
    The other misgiving I have had with Pompeo has been his 
ideas on surveillance. He talked about having a database that 
would have lifestyle choices in it, and I am absolutely and 
unquestionably, unequivocally opposed to more databases by the 
Government, and particularly a government that follows our 
lifestyle. I think that is just a recipe for 1984 on steroids. 
But I have talked to both the director on this and to the 
President again today, and I have not been given anything or 
promised anything. I do not get a bridge built somewhere. But I 
have asked that we consider, you know, the liberty of the 
individual and the Constitution, and I have been assured by the 
President that there will be a discussion.
    The President has every bit of power within--every bit of 
power to change the rules on who requires a warrant. We can do 
it here, or the President could simply say tomorrow that the 
FBI has to get a warrant to search databases that were 
collected with a less than constitutional standard. We collect 
stuff in the 702 database and the 12333 database that are 
collected without warrants because we collect them on 
foreigners. I am actually okay with that, but I am not okay 
with him searching the database to see if you are a Trump 
supporter or to see if you are a Democrat supporter, depending 
on who is in power, or to see if you are someone who might not 
have filled out their tax forms correctly. I think these 
databases can be abused, and the President has assured me that 
there is going to be a discussion, and that we will be involved 
with the discussion, of things that the administration can do 
to try to have Fourth Amendment protections for Americans.
    And so, with all that being said, I have changed my mind. I 
have decided to go ahead and vote for Director Pompeo because 
he has assured me that he has learned the lesson. Now, time 
will tell if those assurances are true or not, and I will not 
say that--I can say with absolute certainty I know what his 
opinions will be and how they will come out over time. But I do 
take him at his word that he does and has incorporated the idea 
that the Iraq War was a mistake.
    And I think that is a step forward particularly for our 
side to have anybody say that because I am sure if we had a 
vote on my side, I would probably lose that vote in the 
committee even. But I do think that the country understands 
that the Afghan War has gone on for 18 years and they are ready 
for some other ideas.
    I hope that they will let Trump be Trump and that Pompeo 
will be a constructive influence and not a destructive one. But 
from what I have been told and listened to with the director, I 
think that he is open and understands that his job--that the 
President is his boss and will listen. And I hope that all of 
us, the country really, will rethink how many wars we need to 
be involved in and whether they are constructive or 
destructive. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Unless someone really needs to 
talk, I would like to go on with the vote, but if someone 
really feels the need to express themselves. We're going to--I 
will stay here as long as people wish to express themselves.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to make it 
brief.
    The Chairman. All right, sir.
    Senator Merkley. I feel that there are three concerns: that 
there is a conflict of interest, that there is lack of respect 
for the rule of law, and there is a question of suitability for 
diplomacy. On the conflict of interest, we have a major world 
issue that needs to be addressed by working with other 
countries in climate chaos. The individual being nominated is 
deeply embedded with a strong history of working very, very 
closely with the fossil fuel industry and does not seem open to 
wrestling with this incredible threat to America and the world.
    In terms of respect for the rule of law, when I lay out for 
him that the three premises that are in the War Powers Act for 
the use of force, he indicated that he did not think those were 
the premises, that, in fact, it was fine under Article II of 
the Constitution for the President to go beyond the framework 
of law.
    And third, on the suitability for diplomacy, his clear 
decision that the diplomacy should be undone regard to Iran 
that has created a major barrier from them reaching a nuclear 
weapon, from his statement that we have a better strategy, 
which is the use of 2,000 sorties, that is not the role of a 
diplomat. And from his attacks on Muslim-Americans, LGBTQ 
Americans. So, for those three reasons, I think he is not the 
right person for this position.
    And it was our responsibility, as Hamilton laid out, is the 
person a fit character for the position? And on these three 
items I do not think he is.
    The Chairman. I understand if it comes to this side, people 
are going to be speaking at length. Do you all want to keep 
going?
    Senator Johnson. I have got about an hour-long speech here 
if I am going next. Do you want me to go for an hour or can we 
vote?
    Senator Kaine. I have a 2-minute speech----
    Senator Johnson. Okay, why do we not vote, and then we can 
make our speeches? We have--we have a vote going on in the 
chamber right now.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, this is the Secretary of 
State nominee.
    The Chairman. I am glad to let everyone speak.
    Senator Menendez. So, I think people should have the 
opportunity to establish the record for themselves as they will 
cast a significant vote here, and I am willing to stay until 
whatever hour is necessary to have those votes. Let people have 
their say, and then we can have a vote.
    Senator Johnson. I guess I'll go next.
    The Chairman. Bring the coffee.
    Senator Johnson. An idle threat. I will not repeat what I 
think the chairman made excellent points, and the other two 
Republicans that have spoken, and Senator Paul. But what I 
guess I would just kind of like to ask my Democratic 
colleagues. I am not going to question anybody's individual 
motive for potentially voting no. But based on the 
qualifications of this nominee, what nominee would you vote yes 
for?
    So, again, this has always been the case, you know, 
certainly my standpoint when I voted for Secretary Kerry. I 
mean, I had 16 ways on Sunday I could have justified a no vote 
there. But, again, I thought the President of the United States 
deserves to be surrounded by advisors that agree with the 
President, not necessarily particularly a member--particularly 
not one from the opposition party. So, certainly we on this 
side have generally taken the viewpoint that even if it is the 
President of the opposing party, we will vote affirmatively to 
vote to confirm secretaries of state of that President's party 
that agrees with the President, not necessarily with us.
    So, again, I do not know what nominee would actually pass 
muster here. So, I have to say collectively, not, again, 
questioning anybody's individual motives, but collectively, 
this is a deeply partisan action being taken by Democrats, and 
it is very disappointing.
    And the other point I want to make is I have sat through a 
number of committee hearings and other nominations where 
members of the other side have expressed deep concern about the 
fact the State Department simply has not been staffed properly. 
This administration has not provided nominees to carry out and 
conduct the business of the State Department. Now, some of 
those concerns I think are legitimate. I think some of those 
are grossly overblown. But when you take a look at Director 
Pompeo's record within the CIA, you have to take a look at it 
and say he will be excellent in fulfilling those positions and 
bringing a fully-functioning State Department.
    So, again, maybe in the future, now those individuals who 
vote against this nominee, I guess I hope I do not have to 
listen through or listen to a bunch of complaints about a State 
Department that just is not being staffed properly because you 
are basically voting no on a nominee who I think will do an 
excellent job of staffing the State Department. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. One of the reasons that I would hope we would 
hold our comments to a degree until after the vote is I am 
going to ask for something as a courtesy to the committee in a 
moment. I do not want us to harden ourselves against each other 
before that time, but I am more than glad to listen to other 
comments if that is what people want to do. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I will be brief. This is not 
about policy difference. I have voted for plenty of people in 
this administration who I have differences in policy with. I 
voted for Director Pompeo to be head of the CIA because I think 
he is very suited to be the head of an intel agency. But just 
like I do not want to vote for anti-science people to be the 
head of science agencies or anti-education people to be the 
head of education agencies, I do not want to vote for people 
who are anti-diplomat to be the Nation's chief diplomat.
    Many people opposed the Iran deal. I only know of one who 
said we do not need to worry about doing a deal, it is only 
going to take 2,000 bombing runs to wipe out Iran's nuclear 
capacity. I only know of one person who said that, and it was 
Congressman Pompeo. Many people oppose and find reason to 
oppose, legitimate reason to oppose the regimes in Iran and 
North Korea. I know of very few who say it should be official 
U.S. policy to change those regimes.
    This is the chief diplomat. He has urged us to back out of 
U.S. diplomat commitment, both to the Paris Accords and the 
Iran deal. I am on the Armed Services Committee. We have 
Secretary Mattis, who I think we all respect, sitting at a 
table at the Armed Committee Services who says Iran is 
complying with the deal, and staying in the deal is in the 
national interests of the United States.
    This is not about policy difference. I voted for people who 
are against the Iran deal for other positions. But in the chief 
diplomatic position, to have somebody who thought military 
action was preferable to diplomacy, who thinks regime should be 
an instrument of foreign policy, and who takes such a contrary 
position to the--to the person that I think is probably the 
indispensable voice of this administration on matters of 
national security, I just--I just cannot vote yes, and I will 
vote no for those reasons.
    The Chairman. It looks like we are good. I would like to 
move through the business that we have before us if we could.
    Without objection, I would like to move to the non-
controversial items on the agenda: Mr. Thomas Hushek to be the 
Ambassador to South Sudan; Ms. Kirsten Dawn Madison to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and 
Law Enforcement Affairs; and the five FSO list, as modified. I 
have had the pleasure of working of Kirsten Madison when she 
was Deputy Staff Director for this committee, and I know that 
she will do an outstanding job at the State Department.
    Is there a motion to report favorably the Hushek and 
Madison nominations and the five FSO lists, as modified, en 
bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. First, for myself, I am supporting all of 
these nominees. In order to help you move along, I ask that the 
statements I would have made as it relates to each of these 
nominees be included in the record.

    [The material referred to by Senator Menendez follows:]

          Statement by Senator Menendez on the nomination of 
           CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State

          Mr. Chairman, let me say a few things about the nominee, but 
        before I do let me just say that Democrats on this committee 
        have worked overwhelmingly with you in moving nominations, in 
        being a constructive part of hearings, and in voting for a wide 
        range of nominations. Many of us, including myself, have voted 
        for the President's nominees for cabinet members--from the 
        Secretary of Defense to the former Secretary of Homeland 
        Security, now the Chief of Staff, to the Small Business 
        Administrator, to the Transportation Secretary--so this 
        suggestion that there is partisanship simply because you do not 
        support a nominee is ridiculous based upon the facts. And you 
        know from the previous administration and my comments that I 
        believe very strongly that the Congress plays a vital role in 
        the check and balance on any executive branch. And I believe 
        that regardless of who is sitting in the White House. That's 
        what Article I is all about.
          Mr. Chairman, I am genuinely disappointed to have to cast a 
        vote against a Secretary of State nominee. But at the end of 
        the day, as I considered Director Pompeo's nomination including 
        his hearing, his past statements, and recent revelations, I do 
        not have a satisfactory answer to the question: which Mike 
        Pompeo am I voting on?
          Unfortunately, during his hearing, Director Pompeo offered 
        contradictory statements, and was less than forthcoming when 
        pressed on a number of issues.
          Given the opportunity to outline the strategies he would 
        advocate to deal with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, or 
        Venezuela, he failed to exhibit the depth of knowledge or 
        thoughtfulness about what those strategies would be. Clearly 
        any nominee would know that those would be hotspots in the 
        world which would have to be addressed before the committee.
          Truthfulness and the willingness to be forthcoming to this 
        committee are essential in a Secretary of State nominee. But on 
        both his interview with Special Counsel Mueller about Russia, 
        and his nondisclosure of his trip to North Korea, even in a 
        classified setting where he would have had that opportunity, 
        both critical issues before this committee, both of which 
        members on both sides of the aisle peppered him with questions 
        about, he exhibited that he was more suited to be the CIA 
        Director than Secretary of State because he wanted to be 
        clandestine at the end of the day.
          I don't expect a Cabinet Secretary to publicly disagree with 
        the President; indeed it is his or her duty to carry out the 
        President's agenda. But as policies are being worked out, I 
        remain skeptical of the kind of diplomat that Director Pompeo 
        would be; whether he would be willing to push back on the 
        President's worst instincts, whether he would be willing to say 
        no, or whether he would simply be a yes-man.
          When the President blames Russia's aggressive behavior on 
        Democrats, will Director Pompeo remind him that Russia's 
        aggressive behavior is about Russia and its attacks upon our 
        country--something that doesn't seem to be able to come off the 
        lips of the President?
          When the President wants to call Mexicans drug-traffickers 
        and rapists, as our nation's top diplomat, would Director 
        Pompeo advise him not to? Or would the Pompeo who once called a 
        political opponent a ``turban-topper'' prevail?
          As our nation's top diplomat, would Director Pompeo genuinely 
        promote American values of universal equality and individual 
        human dignity? Or, will we be represented by Congressman 
        Pompeo--who voted against the Violence Against Women's Act--to 
        deny support to victims of gender-based violence--and sponsored 
        legislation to roll-back marriage equality?
          As I've said before, I believe it is imperative for the 
        Secretary of State to be forthright, to be someone in whom the 
        American people and our allies can vest faith and trust. 
        Unfortunately, I do not believe Director Pompeo is someone who 
        will always prioritize diplomacy over conflict, particularly in 
        the context of the aggressive foreign policy voices growing 
        around him. I am particularly concerned because of his past 
        comments on regime change in North Korea and Iran, for example.
          So these are the legitimate concerns that I and many of my 
        colleagues have, although they can express their own views on 
        why. And I appreciate Mr. Chairman, that you say in your 
        opening comments that Director Pompeo has a great relationship 
        with the President--I do believe that being able to speak on 
        behalf of the President and not be undercut, as his former 
        Secretary of State was, is important. But does that great 
        relationship mean that you value that relationship more than 
        the truth? Does that great relationship have you hesitate to 
        push back and say ``Mr. President, this is not the best way to 
        proceed?'' I wonder.
          Now, we didn't choose that there's a NATO meeting this 
        Friday. We didn't choose the moment President Trump fired 
        Secretary Tillerson. We didn't choose as to when he nominated 
        Director Pompeo or when Director Pompeo got all his information 
        in on his questionnaire. We didn't choose when he got his 
        answers in to questions proffered to him by the committee. So 
        while I appreciate that there's a NATO summit, it is not fair 
        to suggest that that is the essence of why we have to cast an 
        affirmative vote for a nominee who otherwise, in many of our 
        view, is flawed.
          And I will just say that we cleared today's vote. We cleared 
        a second meeting in case there was a need for a second meeting 
        tomorrow. You know some people said they were voting ``no'' and 
        maybe they're voting ``yes'' today, but the bottom line is in 
        anticipation--in order to give a fair opportunity to this 
        nominee--we cleared a meeting notice today and another for 
        tomorrow too. And I think putting that all in context is 
        important for understanding that this is not about simply being 
        adversarial to the President. This is about the due diligence 
        of Article I and the views as to whether or not this is a 
        Secretary of State nominee who deserves the votes of each and 
        every member.

                                 ______
                                 

           Statement by Senator Menendez on the Nominations 
                  of Thomas Hushek and Kirsten Madison

          I am very pleased that we are considering the nominations of 
        Thomas Hushek for South Sudan, and Kirsten Madison for 
        Assistant Secretary of State, International Narcotics and Law 
        Enforcement Affairs.
          Ms. Madison is a skilled and experienced individual who 
        possesses deep knowledge and the extensive leadership and 
        management expertise required to excel in her new role. She was 
        a staffer on this committee for several years, and she was 
        well-regarded by all.
          With regards to Mr. Hushek's nomination, South Sudan's civil 
        war--now approaching its fifth year--has been characterized by 
        egregious human rights violations, and has created a 
        humanitarian crisis. More than four million South Sudanese have 
        been forced to flee their homes. Seven million--more than half 
        the population--currently require humanitarian assistance. And 
        the war shows no signs of ending.
          The United States played a critical role in bringing an end 
        to the war in Sudan, and had a central role in helping South 
        Sudan achieve independence. Since the beginning of this 
        administration, however, I have watched our role diminish. Rex 
        Tillerson eliminated the position of Special Envoy for Sudan 
        and South Sudan in the midst of ongoing conflict--an enormous 
        mistake.
          We have not had an Ambassador in Juba for well over six 
        months, which has cut our access and influence in Juba at a 
        time when those who remain in country--journalists, human 
        rights activists, domestic and international aid workers and 
        others in civil society, and even the United Nations--are under 
        increasing pressure from a government that is unwelcoming, to 
        say the least.
          Mr. Hushek is an experienced and accomplished Foreign Service 
        officer. A three-time Deputy Chief of Mission, he has extensive 
        managerial experience as well as a strong record of leadership 
        in difficult environments. Confirming him is a necessary, if 
        not sufficient step forward in restoring elevated U.S. 
        engagement.
          Mr. Chairman, the President nominated 2 excellent people for 
        these positions, and I look forward to their swift 
        confirmation. I am so pleased when the President nominates 
        these types of individuals for such important positions.

    Senator Menendez. And I will make that motion.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there a second?
    Senator Gardner. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to report favorably the nominations and FSO lists.
    All in favor, will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The nominations 
and the FSO lists are agreed to.
    We will now move to the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be 
Secretary of State.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Risch. I will move that we send that nomination out 
favorably to the floor.
    Senator Johnson. 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?
    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. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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. Mr. Chairman, the vote is 11 ayes, 10 nays. 
However, the vote of those present is 10 ayes and 10 nays.
    The Chairman. So, for the committee members and those who 
are tuning in, the way the committee rules work, in order to 
vote a nominee out favorably, the majority of votes have to 
come from people who are present. Johnny Isakson gave the 
eulogy today for his best friend, and he will not back until 
about 11:30 this evening. I know that all of the members have 
been able to express themselves in the way they see fit. We 
have 11 ayes and 10 nays.
    We can do this several different ways. It is pretty 
historic to send a Secretary of State to the floor without a 
positive recommendation. It can be done in other ways. We all 
know the other ways it can be done. But when you consider the 
fact that one of our most respected members, Johnny Isakson, 
who has, I know, accommodated many of us on many occasions, 
probably had paired votes with other people. When they could 
not be here, he voted present so that the outcome would be the 
way that it was supposed to be if everyone was here. I would 
ask the indulgence of the committee, knowing that we have 11 
members who voted yes and 10 members who voted no, I would ask 
the committee, understanding the historic nature of this, I 
would ask that the committee by voice vote--by voice vote--send 
this nominee to the floor with a positive recommendation 
knowing that if Johnny Isakson were here, a valued member, if 
he were here or if we were holding this vote at 11:30 tonight, 
this nominee would go to the floor with a positive 
recommendation.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, we all have a 
great deal of respect for Senator Isakson, but this is a vote 
for a Secretary of State. The parliamentarian has told us that 
a voice vote that is truly a 10-10 vote is not a vote that--
even on a voice vote that can move forward to the floor, and 
would create an infirmity on the floor as it relates to the 
nominee. It would put us in the position of having to vote yes 
when we clearly do not support the nominee to move the--to the 
floor with a positive recommendation.
    The Chairman. I would move--I would move by recorded vote.
    Senator Menendez. A recorded vote would still leave you in 
a tie, a 10-10. That is our problem.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I am going to--we have all--we have all 
recorded our votes. Every Democrat has voted no. Every 
Republican has voted yes.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Coons. I move that we send the recommendation for 
the Secretary of State without recommendation.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman. Chris, I think that is one 
idea. The other way would be is everybody has had an 
opportunity to express their vote, as the chairman has said. I 
think what I would do is I would ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the rules of the committee, the nomination be 
sent to the floor with the vote as recorded here in the 
committee.
    Senator Menendez. Reserving the right to object, my concern 
is that we are beginning to set precedents in the committee 
that then can be used subsequently. So, if the chair wants to 
adjourn for a few minutes so that we can understand whether a 
unanimous consent request, which we obviously understand in the 
full body, but not the committee, is acceptable to do under the 
rules, we can see whether that can be entertained. But I do not 
want to create a precedent that ultimately the majority will 
recite to us after we agree to it and say, well, you agreed to 
it this time, why not another time.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, if I could include in my 
unanimous consent request that this is only due to the special 
unique circumstances of today, and that it not be used as 
precedent in any future action.
    The Chairman. Let us--let us take a 5-minute adjournment if 
we could, and we will--we will reconvene in 5 minutes. 
[Recess.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. The state of play. The rule 
regarding members being present is not a committee rule. It is 
a Senate rule. Therefore, committee action cannot overrule 
that.
    Senator Isakson's plane lands at 10:15. We can just hold 
the meeting open until the time. The reason for doing that 
would be, as I mentioned in my introductory comments, it does 
appear that Mike Pompeo has the votes to become Secretary of 
State. I think we acknowledged that we have members--enough 
Democratic members that he will be voted on in a positive way.
    If we wait until tomorrow morning to vote, which we can do, 
and I appreciate so much our ranking member and others 
accommodating the fact that we set up a backup meeting in the 
event we had difficulties this evening. Then we have--we have 
the issue of floor time, cloture votes. We know at least 
somebody in the Senate, it just takes one person, will cause us 
to burn the clock. And so, we have this NATO summit, foreign 
ministers summit, that is happening on Friday. We also have 
other issues that are happening.
    So, the way this--in normal ways--might happen, normal 
times, would be if any Democratic member would vote 
``present''--we had an indication of that. Just vote 
``present.'' We could vote--we could vote our CIA director out 
on a positive vote, positive recommendation. Everybody has 
already recorded their votes.
    It seems to me that that is the will of the committee. That 
is the will of the committee. We have one respected member 
giving a eulogy at a funeral. All of us have had to do the 
same. And it seems to me just from the standpoint of history 
and the permanent status of this coming out of committee, being 
a part of history, and since we know the committee itself on an 
11-10 vote wants to vote this member--this person out on a 
positive vote. If I have an indication that one member would 
vote ``present,'' then we could go ahead and do this. If not, 
we could stay until 11:00 tonight or 11:30 and vote. I am open 
to either one.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I raised 
the question in the first place is because I was concerned 
about precedent, and sure enough----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. We would have been in the 
midst of establishing a precedent against the rules and an 
infirmity of the nomination on the floor. So, if I really 
wanted to stop this, I would have let you do it so that we 
would have an infirmity on the floor. So, it is not----
    The Chairman. Oh, actually, I had people whispering in my 
ear--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It is not like we are not that prepared.
    Senator Menendez. But having said that, I think that 
instead of asking any member who feels strongly about this vote 
that we keep the vote open until tonight. That will allow you 
to achieve the goal of having Senator Isakson cast his vote. 
You will have the appropriate vote that you wish to send it to 
the floor. You will not lose time because we would still be 
within the calendar day, so for the floor process, nothing will 
be affected. So, I think that is the other process that could 
be achieved here.
    The Chairman. Okay. Well, that is fine with me. So, we have 
a situation where we cannot do roving votes because the same 
infirmity could occur on the floor. So, that will mean the 
committee meeting--any member can--aside from knowing these 
other things that are infirmities, we are aware that a roving 
vote--rolling vote--another member can come to the floor that 
is not a member of the committee and consider that invalid if 
there is not a quorum present. All they have to ask was a 
quorum present when the vote took place, so we really cannot do 
that either.
    So, I would just look forward to us voting again tonight at 
11:00, and if members want to go vote, I will call----
    Senator Coons. Having heard earlier this afternoon a 
request from my dear friend, Senator Isakson, whom I esteem 
greatly, this was not the fact pattern that we had expected. 
Given the public statements by a number of the members of this 
committee, we expected to be in a different fact pattern. I am 
recorded as voting against Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State, 
but I will vote ``present'' to allow him to move forward now 
without us having to wait until 11:00 at night because that 
just seems, frankly----
    I respect the ranking member's legitimate concerns about 
not creating precedent or infirmity, but to force all of us to 
reconvene at 11:00 tonight. I have spoken to Johnny. I know how 
very demanding and draining this eulogy was for him today. I 
will vote ``present.''
    The Chairman. Well, that is--that is what I would have 
expected. Thank you. Thank you so much. With that, the clerk 
will call the roll. And this is on the recommendation to send 
Mike Pompeo out to the Senate--to the full Senate with a 
positive recommendation.
    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. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Present.
    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 tally is 11 ayes, 9 nays, and 
1 present.
    The Chairman. We will report him to the floor in a positive 
manner. I want to thank members of this committee for the 
diligence they have displayed. I think we have done the right 
thing together. I want to thank Senator Coons for being a 
statesman.
    With that, 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 will stand 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 6:12 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

    The following Nominations were agreed to en bloc by voice vote.

  Mr. Francis R. Fannon, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Energy Resources) (Senators Menendez, Booker, Markey, 
        and Merkley recorded as ``no'')

  Mr. Jonathan R. Cohen, of California, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be the Deputy 
        Representative of the United States of America to the United 
        Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary, and the Deputy Representative of the 
        United States of America in the Security Council of the United 
        Nations, and to be Representative of the United States of 
        America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United 
        Nations, during his tenure of service as Deputy Representative 
        of the United States of America to the United Nations

  Mr. David B. Cornstein, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Hungary

  Mr. Eliot Pedrosa, of Florida, to be the Alternate Executive Director 
        of the Inter-American Development Bank

  The Honorable Jackie Wolcott, of Virginia, to be Representative of 
        the United States of America to the Vienna Office of the United 
        Nations, with the rank of Ambassador and to be Representative 
        of the United States of America to the International Atomic 
        Energy Agency (Senator Paul recorded as ``no'')

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Gardner, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, 
Murphy, Kaine, and Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting will come to order.
    And I want to thank everybody for being here.
    I think what we are going to do--I think everyone 
understands we have got some nominations that likely will be 
decided on very quickly. I am going to go ahead and introduce 
that portion of the meeting. I know Senator Menendez has a few 
comments to make. And if members show up and we can vote, we 
will. Otherwise we will move to the AUMF hearing and just move 
away from that once we have a quorum here to be able to deal 
with the nominations.
    Today nominations-wise, we have Mr. Francis R. Fannon to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources; Mr. Jonathan 
R. Cohen to be the Deputy Representative to the United Nations 
and Representative to the General Assembly of the United 
Nations. We have Mr. David Cornstein to be Ambassador to 
Hungary. We have Mr. Eliot Pedrosa to be Alternate Executive 
Director to the Inter-American Development Bank, and the 
Honorable Jackie Wolcott to be Representative to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency and Representative to the 
Vienna Office of the United Nations.
    With that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
ranking member and my friend, Bob Menendez.

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
say that the Democrats are here ready to vote on the 
President's nominees. So let it be reflected in the record.
    The Chairman. I am glad you are in another good mood. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. I said it with a smile, Mr. Chairman.
    I am pleased with many of the nominees before us today, and 
I intend to vote in favor of all of them but one.
    But before I do so, I want to discuss the recent 
controversy concerning our newly confirmed Ambassador to 
Germany, Richard Grenell, as well as the importance of vetting 
nominees that come before this committee.
    On April 26, 2018, shortly before Mr. Grenell was confirmed 
by the Senate, I spoke on the floor about his nomination. I 
noted that Germany is a key NATO ally not only for our security 
but for the values we hold dear as a country. And I discussed 
Mr. Grenell's willingness to re-tweet DNC emails stolen by 
Russian intelligence, essentially doing Vladimir Putin's work 
for him, which is in my mind unbelievable. This tweet came on 
top of an extensive history of derogatory comments about women 
over Twitter. On the floor of the Senate, I stated that these 
tweets showed his bad judgment and that he is publicly 
contributing his own brand of toxic political discourse. They 
are not the actions of a diplomat, and I expressed my concern 
about whether he would do such things, if confirmed, when he 
went to Germany.
    Mr. Grenell's actions on his first day as Ambassador proved 
my concerns were well founded. Within hours of presenting his 
credentials to German President Steinmeier and following 
President Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the 
JCPOA, Mr. Grenell tweeted that, quote, German companies doing 
business in Iran should wind down operations immediately. This 
did not go over well in Germany. Many Germans immediately 
condemned Mr. Grenell's tweet as offensive and inappropriate. 
It was perceived as the United States giving orders.
    Mr. Chairman, this is not effective diplomacy, and this is 
not how one treats one of America's longstanding allies.
    Ambassador Grenell's aggressive posture towards his German 
host stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by 
Ambassador Huntsman in Russia. Last week, Ambassador Huntsman 
announced his attendance at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum 
and encouraged American business leaders to attend as well. The 
U.S. embassy produced an online video promoting U.S. businesses 
at the forum, the kind of video you would expect to see from an 
Ambassador to one of our closest allies, for example, Germany.
    Several Russian individuals on the U.S. sanctions list will 
be in attendance at the St. Petersburg forum, including Viktor 
Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned on April 6th.
    So in my mind, what kind of message is this administration 
sending by attacking our allies while acting as though there is 
nothing amiss in our relationship with Moscow?
    If Mr. Grenell's actions have demonstrated anything, it is 
the importance of properly vetting the nominees that come 
before the committee.
    And to that extent, Mr. Chairman, I have comments about all 
of the other nominees we are considering today, which I intend 
to support. I would ask that they be included in the record 
except for one that I want to speak to.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The opening statement of Senator Menendez follows:]

          Opening Statement of Ranking Member Robert Menendez

          I intend to vote for four of the nominees on today's agenda. 
        Mr. Cohen is a long serving Foreign Service officer who is 
        extremely qualified for his position. These are the types of 
        nominees we should see more of--nominees who have the 
        background, temperament and skills to represent our country on 
        the international stage. I also look forward to voting for Mr. 
        Eliot Pedrosa, the son of Cuban exiles, who has extensive 
        business and finance experience in Latin America.
          I am increasingly concerned by the situation in Hungary, 
        including a sustained rollback in the rule of law and 
        increasing xenophobia and threats to human rights defenders and 
        independent media. I spent time in our hearing and in my 
        private meeting with Mr. Cornstein discussing the urgency of 
        the situation in Hungary and the specific ways in which he is 
        prepared to push back on anti-democratic developments.
          The U.S. representative to Vienna plays a critical role in 
        promoting U.S. values across a series of key international 
        bodies, including the IAEA. While I opposed the JCPOA, it is a 
        grave mistake to walk away from this deal without a plan for 
        ensuring that Iran does not restart its nuclear weapon program. 
        It will be up to Ms. Wolcott, if confirmed, to rebuild our 
        allies and partners' trust in the United States.

    Senator Menendez. Finally, Frank Fannon has considerable 
energy policy experience, but I do not think his experience 
represents the American public's best interest. He has spent 
most of his career advocating for what is in the best interests 
of one of the most polluting industries on the planet, the oil 
and gas industry. He has lobbied against comprehensive climate 
change legislation, against tighter regulation of cigarette and 
tobacco products, against the offshore drilling moratorium in 
the Gulf of Mexico which was put forth immediately after the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster, and perhaps most concerning to me, 
he lobbied against my Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, a bill to 
vastly improve oil industry and accountability and liability 
for damages to the environment, economy, and public health.
    Energy security rests in energy diversification, 
innovation, and development of zero and low carbon energy 
sources. The appointment of an oil and gas lobbyist to this 
position demonstrates a backwards outlook on energy policy.
    So while I will vote to advance the nominations of Ms. 
Wolcott, Cornstein, Pedrosa, and Mr. Cohen, I will be voting 
against Mr. Fannon's nomination.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you for that.
    Are there any other comments? Are we ready to move to a 
vote?
    We are going to have a roll call vote on Fannon.
    Senator Menendez. I can do a voice vote.
    The Chairman. Voice vote? Okay.
    So do we have a motion to favorably report all nominations 
en bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Gardner. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to report favorably the nominations.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I will be aye on all. Would 
you please have me listed as no on Mr. Fannon?
    The Chairman. Anyone else like to be recorded that way?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, the same position.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley? Anybody else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Very good.
    The nominations all pass and are agreed to, with the two 
negative votes recorded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ [At the hearing which immediately followed this business 
meeting, Senators Markey and Booker asked to be recorded as a no vote 
on Fannon through a unanimous consent request made by Ranking Member 
Menendez. Also, Senator Paul asked to be recorded as a no vote on 
Wolcott made through a unanimous consent request by Chairman Corker.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I understand also that Senator Barrasso has asked that he 
be permitted to enter a statement on the Fannon nomination in 
the record. Without objection, we will have that so ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Senator John Barrasso

          Today, the committee is considering the nomination of Frank 
        Fannon, to be the first Assistant Secretary of State for the 
        Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR.) Over the years, I have raised 
        concerns about confirming an individual to this position due to 
        the organizational and structural problems with ENR.
          Improvements are needed to ensure the U.S. Government is 
        pursuing a consistent and effective international energy policy 
        across the world. There has been no clear delineation of 
        responsibilities and authorities on international energy policy 
        within the Executive Branch. Duplication, redundancies and 
        conflicting lines of authorities have created serious problems 
        delivering a consistent message from the United States on 
        international energy. The existing maze of bureaucratic 
        authorities has also created confusion for Congressional 
        committees responsible for reviewing and conducting oversight 
        of the Executive branch activity.
          During his confirmation process, I had the opportunity to 
        speak to Secretary Pompeo directly about these problems and I 
        asked for his assistance in fixing the existing structure. On 
        April 16, 2018, I sent a letter to Mike Pompeo outlining my 
        concerns and asking for his commitment to addressing my serious 
        concerns about duplication, redundancies, and failed 
        coordination. On April 23, 2018, Mike Pompeo responded to my 
        letter.
          He wrote, ``If confirmed, I am committed to conducting a 
        comprehensive review of the organization structure, 
        responsibilities and programs of both ENR and the U.S. 
        Department of Energy's Office of Policy and International 
        Affairs to explore and address any overlapping or conflicting 
        missions.'' In addition, he committed to working with other 
        members of the Cabinet and officials within the administration 
        to identify and delineate lines of authority and 
        responsibilities as they relate to U.S. policy on international 
        energy issues. He also committed to submitting a summary of his 
        findings and the steps to be taken to eliminate overlapping and 
        conflicting roles.
          I appreciate Secretary Pompeo's commitments and willingness 
        to address the current problems. I look forward to working with 
        the administration to ensure the United States is developing 
        strong international energy strategies and clearly 
        communicating a unified message to our allies and the 
        international community.

    The Chairman. 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. The business committee will stand adjourned.


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


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                                 TREATY

  The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for 
        Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print 
        Disabled, done at Marrakesh on June 27, 2013; submitted to the 
        Senate February 10, 2016

     Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratify TD 114-6 Marrakesh--
        agreed to by voice vote

                              LEGISLATION

    S. 2269 and S. Res. 386, as amended by Preamble and Resolving 
Clause Amendments, agreed to en bloc by voice vote

  S. 2269, Global Food Security Reauthorization Act of 2017

  S. Res 386, A resolution urging the Government of the Democratic 
        Republic of the Congo to fulfill its agreement to hold credible 
        elections, comply with constitutional limits on presidential 
        terms, and fulfill its constitutional mandate for a democratic 
        transition of power by taking concrete and measurable steps 
        towards holding elections not later than December 2018 as 
        outlined in the existing election calendar, and allowing for 
        freedom of expression and association, with amendments--
        Menendez added as co-sponsor

     Preamble Amendment

     Resolving Clause Amendment

  S.J. Res. 58, A joint resolution to require certifications regarding 
        actions by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and for other purposes, with 
        an amendment--Agreed to as amended by roll call vote (14-7)

          Ayes: Corker, Flake, Young, Portman (P), Paul, Menendez, 
        Cardin (P), Shaheen, Coons, Udall (P), Murphy, Kaine (P), 
        Markey (P), and Booker

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (P), Johnson (P), Gardner (P), Barrasso, 
        Isakson, and Merkley

    Manager's Amendment--agreed to by roll call vote (14-7)

          Ayes: Corker, Flake, Young, Portman (P), Menendez, Cardin 
        (P), Shaheen, Coons, Udall (P), Murphy, Kaine, Markey (P), 
        Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (P), Gardner (P), Barrasso, 
        Isakson, and Paul

    Merkley 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--not agreed to by roll call vote 
(10-10)

          Ayes: Paul, Menendez, Cardin (P), Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 
        Kaine (P), Markey (P), Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Corker, Risch, Rubio (P), Johnson (P), Flake, Gardner 
        (P), Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman (P)
    Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 2--not agreed to by roll call vote 
(13-7)

          Ayes: Paul, Cardin (P), Murphy, Kaine (P), Markey (P), 
        Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Corker, Risch, Rubio (P), Johnson (P), Flake, Gardner 
        (P), Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman (P), Menendez, Shaheen, 
        and Coons

                               NOMINATION

  The Honorable Joseph E. Macmanus, of New York, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Colombia--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m. in Room 
S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Young, Barrasso, Isakson, Paul, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, 
Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee business 
meeting will come to order.
    I want to thank everybody for being here.
    In this business meeting, we are going to consider one 
treaty, three pieces of legislation, and one nomination.
    The Marrakesh Treaty will significantly expand access to 
books and other materials to several million Americans with 
severe vision impairments. The treaty drafters modeled the 
treaty on a longstanding copyright section in U.S. law, known 
as the Chafee Amendment. We held a hearing on this treaty on 
April the 18th, and the administration testified.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, can you speak up a little 
bit?
    Senator Risch. He is doing just fine by me. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Gosh, I have never had anybody ask me to do 
that.
    We held a hearing on this treaty on April 18th. The 
administration testified in strong support of ratification.
    On May the 15th, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved by 
unanimous vote the implementing bill for this treaty.
    Throughout this process we received valuable input from a 
number of stakeholders, and we are not aware of any opposition 
to the treaty. I urge my colleagues to support this treaty. 
There are a number of people here in support of it also.
    S. 2269, the Global Food Security Reauthorization Act, 
reauthorizes for 5 additional years the Feed the Future and 
Emergency Food Security Program representing the full spectrum 
of food security programs at USAID. Feed the Future is an 
agriculturally focused economic program that, for the past 
decade, has had measurable success in increasing farmer income 
and decreasing stunting in children. The Emergency Food 
Security Program, or EFSP, started in 2010 when it became 
evident that the Food for Peace program from the farm bill was 
incapable of reaching a growing number of people needing 
emergency food aid. Last year, EFSP provided food aid to 36.4 
million people in 42 countries, and it represents half of all 
emergency food aid provided by the United States.
    I would like to recognize Senators Isakson, Coons, and 
Young for their support of S. 2269 and urge all my colleagues 
to support the bill.
    S. Res. 386 highlights the failure of the Government of the 
Democratic Republic of Congo to hold national elections over 
the last 2 years and calls on the Government to complete 
concrete steps towards holding elections.
    I would like to thank Senators Flake, Booker, Isakson, and 
Coons for their leadership on this issue.
    Finally, I would like to thank Senators Young and Shaheen 
for cosponsoring S.J. Res. 58 and for working with us on this 
legislation. In March, the Senate rejected a misguided--I do 
not want to use that word. Sorry, staff.
    In March, the Senate rejected an effort to bypass the 
committee process with legislation on Yemen. At the time, I 
made a commitment to Senators Young and Shaheen to hold a 
hearing and give the committee an opportunity to thoroughly 
review the situation in Yemen before proceeding with 
legislation. Before us today is the result of our committee's 
work, a resolution that I believe deals with the difficult 
issues surrounding the crisis in Yemen in a responsible manner.
    This resolution establishes humanitarian and diplomatic 
conditions that Saudi Arabia must meet in order for the U.S. to 
continue to provide in-flight refueling of Saudi coalition 
aircraft for missions in Yemen.
    The resolution also includes a national security waiver to 
give the administration flexibility for managing its 
partnership with Saudi Arabia.
    Saudi Arabia is an American partner, and obviously it has 
the right to protect its citizens from significant threats 
posed by the Houthis who are backed by Iran. But it is in the 
U.S. and Saudi Arabia's interest to address the humanitarian 
crisis in Yemen and to end of the war there, through diplomacy. 
This resolution is intended to advance those purposes.
    With that, Senator Menendez I am sure has comments.

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I support all the items on the agenda.
    S.J. Resolution 58 would block U.S. refueling until the 
Secretary of State certifies that Saudi Arabia is making good 
faith efforts toward diplomatic negotiations, taking 
appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, and 
taking actions to reducing civilian casualties.
    Earlier this year, the Senate debated one element of U.S. 
policy, the provision of military support, including refueling, 
intelligence, and advice to Saudi Arabia. During that debate, 
the administration argued that U.S. support facilitates more 
precise targeting, reduces civilian casualties, and signified 
support for the coalition to move forward with diplomatic 
negotiations to end the conflict.
    This resolution is entirely consistent with the arguments 
we heard from the executive branch. But if the Secretary cannot 
make the requisite certification, this resolution ensures that 
we will have the necessary insight and oversight to debate 
whether or not we should still be supporting the Saudi 
coalition.
    I want to especially thank Senators Young and Shaheen for 
bringing us to this point. I want to thank Senator Murphy for 
his leadership on this issue to address this urgent 
humanitarian crisis and devastation. We were able to 
incorporate many of Senator Murphy's amendments into a 
manager's package to strengthen the bill and send a clear 
message regarding congressional expectations for U.S. military 
support to the Saudi coalition. And therefore, I support its 
passage.
    I also want to thank Senators Casey and Isakson for their 
hard work on S. 2269, the 5-year reauthorization for the Global 
Food Security Reauthorization Act, which is vital to continuing 
the good work of the United States Government in combating food 
insecurity around the world. As we speak an estimated 124 
million people in 51 countries currently face the crisis of 
food insecurity. Four countries, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, 
and Nigeria have been identified as at risk of famine.
    First enacted in 2016, the Global Food Security Act 
provided legislative authorization for the Feed the Future 
initiative, a whole-of-government approach focused on improving 
livelihoods in developing countries and improving the nutrition 
of women and children. By reauthorizing this strategy, we have 
an opportunity to show the world that the United States remains 
committed to leading resilience and humanitarian assistance 
worldwide and to do our part in building a healthier, more 
prosperous, and more secure world.
    I strongly support passage of the resolution offered by 
Senators Flake and Booker. S. Res. 386 would urge the 
Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo to fulfill its 
agreement to hold credible elections not later than December 
2018. I ask to be added as a cosponsor of the resolution. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
    While the resolution rightly focuses on the need for 
credible elections, it also highlights that ineffective 
leadership, mismanagement, and misrule have exacerbated the 
current humanitarian and security crisis in the country. Since 
December, at least 70,000 people have fled to refugee camps in 
neighboring Uganda. Earlier this month, UNICEF reported that as 
a result of violence between the Government and militias, up to 
400,000 children are at risk of starving to death. World Health 
Organization officials have sounded the alarm for the spread of 
Ebola from a rural area to a city with a population of over 1 
million. 28 deaths are reported thus far.
    It is past time for President Joseph Kabila to respect the 
constitutional rights of the Congolese people to choose their 
next leaders.
    Finally, I am very pleased that we have before us a 
resolution of advice and consent for the Marrakesh Treaty to 
Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, 
Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. For over 3 
years, my staff has worked with the staff of Senator Corker, as 
well as the staff of the Judiciary Committee, in a bipartisan 
fashion to advance this treaty and its implementing 
legislation, which has the strong support of the visually 
impaired community, libraries, and publishers associations.
    I was proud to serve as an original cosponsor of the 
implementing legislation for the Marrakesh Treaty, alongside 
Chairman Corker and Senators Grassley, Feinstein, Leahy, Hatch, 
and Harris. This critically important treaty would bring 
concrete benefits to visually impaired Americans across the 
country. I have heard from numerous New Jerseyans in favor of 
the Marrakesh Treaty and especially from visually impaired 
students like Veronica Gaspa from South Orange who stayed away 
from language classes out of fear that they will not be able 
access necessary materials. Passage of this treaty will make a 
concrete, positive difference in their lives.
    And lastly, I am pleased we are moving forward with the 
nomination of Mr. Joseph Macmanus, an experienced career 
diplomat, something that is becoming rare in our hemisphere, as 
many know. I certainly hope that Ambassador Macmanus will hit 
the ground running as Colombia is at a critical moment in the 
implementation of its peace accords and in combating the sharp 
increase in coca cultivation and cocaine production in recent 
years and as Colombia prepares for presidential elections this 
week.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any other member comments before we move ahead?
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I would make some brief 
comments about the Yemen legislation.
    I want to first thank Senator Shaheen for her bipartisan 
partnership on this legislation.
    I also want to thank Senators Collins and Coons for 
cosponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 58.
    I also want to thank Senator Murphy for working with me and 
my office to strengthen the legislation. Much appreciated.
    And most especially, I would like to thank Chairman Corker 
and Ranking Member Menendez for agreeing to put this 
legislation on today's business meeting and working with my 
office on the manager's amendment. The changes this committee 
helped incorporate strengthened the bill further.
    Yemen, as everyone knows, is the world's largest 
humanitarian crisis. More than 22 million people, roughly 
three-quarters of the population, need humanitarian aid and 
protection. 18 million people are food insecure. Approximately 
8 million are at risk of famine. And just under 500,000 
children are severely malnourished. Yemen confronts the largest 
cholera outbreak in the world. We also have serious national 
security interests at stake there, and the longer the crisis 
continues, the more mischief Iran can cause and the more AQAP, 
ISIS will flourish.
    So that is why I focused on this issue since March and 
April of last year. It is appropriate and necessary for our 
committee to take action with respect to Yemen.
    I am proud of this manager's amendment that we developed 
together with the active involvement of the committee majority 
and minority. This legislation enjoys significant bipartisan 
support, and it is endorsed by Oxfam and Mercy Corps, NGOs with 
people on the ground. From my perspective, this is what 
substantive, serious bipartisan legislating with principled 
compromises along the way should look like, and we need more of 
this on Capitol Hill not less.
    So I urge my colleagues to support Senate Joint Resolution 
58 and the manager's amendment. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your work.
    Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I would like to echo what Senator 
Young has said and thank him for his leadership and Senator 
Murphy for working very hard to help improve the bill.
    I think the most important thing about this resolution is 
that it sends a very strong message, a bipartisan message, 
which I think is really important, to Saudi Arabia and to the 
UAE about what the Congress thinks, or at least hopefully the 
Senate thinks, about what they are doing. And I hope that would 
give them some pause and make them more willing to address the 
humanitarian concerns that are raised by this resolution.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your and the ranking 
member's support for this effort.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your work.
    Senator Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. I will be brief.
    I want to thank you and Senator Menendez for your support 
of the Global Food Security bill and Senator Coons, Senator 
Rubio, and Senator Young for their support as well.
    This continues to be the future of reauthorizing it for 5 
more years, but most importantly it continues the whole-of-
government approach which is so critical dealing with food 
needs around the world.
    I thank you for your support.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for all the work you 
have done in Africa in particular.
    Senator Murphy. Do you want comments now on these bills?
    The Chairman. I know there are going to be some amendments 
and things.
    So with that, if that is okay, we will move to the 
Marrakesh Treaty. Is there a motion to approve the treaty and 
the resolution of advice and consent?
    Senator Menendez. 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 of advice and consent. All 
those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it and the 
resolution of advice and consent of the treaty is agreed to.
    Next, without objection, we will consider en bloc S. 2269, 
the Global Food Security Reauthorization Act, and S. Res. 386, 
as amended by the preamble and resolving clause amendments.
    Would any members like to give additional comments on 
either of these pieces of legislation before we approve them?
    Senator Booker. Senator Menendez and both of you have said 
so much about this bill. And I thank you all for what you have 
done with Senator Flake and myself to make it better. What is 
happening in that country is an affront to humanitarian 
concerns, as well as rule of law, as well as democracy. This is 
very basic standard statement in a bipartisan way. As Senator 
Shaheen was saying with regards to Yemen, it is same for the 
DRC, and we need to be putting more pressure on Kabila to abide 
by international standards.
    I just want to say my gratitude for everybody working on 
it, especially to my colleague, Senator Flake.
    The Chairman. Thank you both for your work on it.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, without belaboring the 
issue, I think it is even more important now, given the Ebola 
outbreak there, to have them understand that there is 
international attention of what is happening and they need to 
address what is going on.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. I think it is so important we apply 
pressure not just that they hold elections but do it in a 
legitimate fashion. I just went over there in March and met 
with a team, and they are planning to buy a huge number of 
electronic laptops from South Korea. That suggests something 
about the challenges. And these laptops used in the middle of 
the jungle--people have never touched one. Our mission over 
there is pushing this very hard to hold a legitimate election--
legitimacy efforts help. And I think this is excellent that we 
are pushing them.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Is there a motion to approve en bloc S. 2269 and S. Res. 
386?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Merkley. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. 2269 and S. Res. 386, 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.
    Now we will move to S.J. Res. 58. I am pleased that we were 
able to complete a manager's amendment, which incorporates 
changes from the amendments filed by Senator Murphy. The 
manager's package makes a number of improvements, including 
language aimed at reducing delays of food, fuel, and medicine 
shipments and facilitating medical evaluations and language 
promoting appropriate steps to prevent harm to civilians and 
civilian infrastructure and additional reporting, including on 
the objectives of the Saudis and the Emiratis in Yemen external 
support to the Houthi forces and the applicability of sanctions 
to the Houthi forces.
    I will be supporting the manager's amendment and opposing 
other amendments.
    I would entertain a motion to approve the manager's 
amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a roll call 
vote, please.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the manager's 
amendment?
    The Chairman. So I guess, yes, go ahead and speak to it. We 
will do this afterwards.
    Senator Murphy. I am happy to talk whenever you want to do 
the vote.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Senator Murphy. So I just want to thank Senator Young and 
Senator Shaheen and the committee for working so hard to get 
this manager's amendment before us.
    This just adds a little bit of extra teeth on the 
certifications that the administration has to go through in 
order to continue these refueling missions to make sure that we 
actually are taking demonstrable steps to help ease the 
civilian casualties on the ground and work toward a peace 
settlement.
    But just for a point of reference for members of the 
committee, as many of you know, I do not think we should be 
involved in this military campaign to begin with, but the 
situation on the ground is getting worse not better. April was 
the worst month for civilian casualties from the bombing 
campaign in the history of the conflict. So if the Saudis are 
telling you they are getting and more precise, the evidence 
does not back that up.
    Second, though we have been advising them strongly against 
a new military assault on Hodeidah, a port that brings in 
almost all of the humanitarian assistance, they have ignored 
our entreaties, and they are in the middle today of the 
beginning stages of an assault on Hodeidah. An assault on 
Hodeidah would effectively end the flow of humanitarian 
assistance in that country, which would frankly take a 
humanitarian nightmare into an absolute catastrophe.
    And so I think these certifications are strong, and I would 
argue that under the present circumstances, the administration 
cannot make them, given the fact that there are no meaningful 
peace negotiations happening in that country.
    So I obviously feel that it is time to walk away from this 
engagement, but I really appreciate the work of all the authors 
of this resolution to get to a place where I think we have the 
strongest set of certifications we can in order to achieve a 
bipartisan vote. I thank everyone.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I will entertain a motion to approve the manager's 
amendment. Is there a motion to approve?
    Senator Shaheen. So moved.
    Senator Booker. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    So the question is on the manager's amendment, and we will 
need a roll call vote here.
    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. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    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 and the nays are 
7.
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    I understand Senator Merkley has an amendment?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is short so I can describe it very easily. If we turn to 
page 4 of the bill, as the third objective, it says 
demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians 
and civilian infrastructure as a result of the military 
operations in Yemen.
    The military operations that we have been most concerned 
about have been the airstrikes, and that makes sense. In the 
context of this bill, it is about refueling. But how are we to 
know or understand what is going on if we do not have these 
sort of after-action report on what is actually getting hit? 
And so simply in support of actions being able to understand 
what is happening, this amendment of mine calls for after-
action reports to be provided to Congress in an appropriate 
classified or unclassified fashion about the intended targets, 
civilian casualties, or damage to civilian infrastructure. By 
getting these kinds of reports, we will actually have some 
insight on whether the Saudi actions are improving or not. We 
have had so much discussion in this committee over whether or 
not the precision-guided munitions are actually resulting in 
any targets that are not civilian targets or if they are 
getting hit, if it is being intended--after-action reports is a 
way we can get a grip on this. And I think it really gives some 
solid backing to the overall bill.
    And so that is my amendment, Merkley number 1. I would love 
to have your all's support so we can really put some teeth in 
this to understand what is going on with those bombing 
campaigns.
    The Chairman. Just in response, our colleagues on the Armed 
Services Committee have raised jurisdictional concerns 
regarding this amendment, and I think they are valid. As a 
matter of fact, both sides of the committee have raised 
concerns. It was actually the minority side of the committee 
that first raised concerns about it.
    Mandating after-action reports on all Saudi missions for 
which the U.S. provides air refueling support would be 
extremely taxing on U.S. military resources operating in 
theater, and could divert them away from their central mission 
against Al Qaeda, AQAP, and ISIS, and it again would be very 
cumbersome.
    I think our goal would be to--if we are successful--to 
attach this to the NDAA. I do not think there is any way we are 
going to attach it to the NDAA if we take jurisdiction from the 
Armed Services Committee. It is my sense. I could be wrong, but 
I do not support the amendment.
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I support the goal of this. I 
agree with the chairman's assessment of this. My staff has sort 
of checked around as well.
    But I would love to work with you, Jeff, in drafting a 
letter that we can send this message perhaps in a different 
format.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that if we 
are actually asking for the President to give serious feedback 
on what is required in this bill, the military has to evaluate 
what the Saudis are hitting. Otherwise, they cannot respond to 
this core question and certification that is required. So my 
amendment provides no more work for the Defense Department than 
is demanded by this bill. It just means that they would 
actually put in a report that we can see here on Capitol Hill. 
And I think that is important.
    The Chairman. All those in favor of the Merkley amendment--
--
    Senator Merkley. I would like to have a roll call on it, 
please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    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?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    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 ayes are 10 and the nays are 
10.
    The Chairman. The amendment does not proceed.
    Do you have another amendment? Did you want to speak to it 
at all?
    Senator Murphy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did have an amendment 
adding additional certification. There has been a lot of news 
reporting about some of the coalition partners training 
extremist Salafist militias. These are bad guys just slightly 
less bad than Al Qaeda and ISIS, and it is a consequence of our 
ongoing partnership that some of these very dangerous groups 
are getting stronger and stronger. The enemy of your enemy is 
your friend. The Saudis are supporting them.
    I drafted an amendment, but I am not going to offer it. It 
is for the committee's continued consideration.
    The Chairman. I think Senator Paul has an amendment that he 
brought with him. He could have held the meeting over to the 
next time. I know there are numbers of people that have worked 
on this for a long time. So if it is agreeable, we will go 
ahead and hear this amendment even though it was not filed.
    Senator Paul. The next time you are mad at me, you will 
remember how conciliatory I am. [Laughter.]
    Senator Paul. Anyhow, I appreciate it. Thank you for 
letting me have the amendment.
    I agree with the goal of this exercise to try to influence 
the Saudis. I do not think this will have any effect for 
precisely the reason most of our stuff has no effect because we 
put too many loopholes in it, and then we say, oh, well, the 
President does not like it. He does not have to obey it.
    You know, when the Iran sanctions came up and those who 
disagreed with the Iran agreement said, well, you know, he 
would not be able to do this without our approval except for we 
gave him a national security waiver. Once you stick a national 
security waiver in here, it is big enough to drive a truck 
through. You can do anything you want.
    This administration is already supplying precision-guided 
weapons as well as refueling Saudis. The Saudis are still 
hitting civilian targets. So if we were to tell them we are not 
going to allow funding for your refueling, they are going to 
simply say, well, we disagree and here is our national 
security.
    So I think you have got the whole bill. And I will just 
introduce my one amendment, that is to get rid of the national 
security waiver because I think that as well intended as this 
is, the Saudis are going to read this and say, well, President 
Trump is already our best buddy. He is selling us $350 billion 
worth of weapons. He does not object to what we are doing now. 
And what is the likelihood this bill has any teeth? Do we have 
to quit bombing civilian sites? I think they are going to laugh 
and say no because there is a presidential waiver.
    We also exclude the Houthi missile sites. Well, the Houthis 
fire their missiles from anywhere because they are mobile. And 
so I think that they will just say, oh, we are firing at Houthi 
missile sites and now the truck is not there and, woops, we hit 
civilians again or they do not admit to it at all without the 
report.
    So I will probably vote for the final package, but I think 
it would be a much stronger package if we were not to have the 
national security waivers. I think we have one in writing that 
says we get rid of the language that has the national security 
waiver for the President.
    The Chairman. That would be Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 
2.
    Senator Paul. However you want to do it. It can just be an 
amendment on its own, if you want to do it that way. However 
you want to do it.
    The Chairman. We will take this as an amendment to amend 
the base bill.
    Senator Paul. Okay. And if we could vote it, it would be 
great.
    The Chairman. I think having a national security waiver 
when you are assisting someone is probably necessary. And I 
appreciate the spirit of what you are doing. I do oppose the 
amendment. However, if there are other things we might want to 
work on before it gets to the floor, I am glad to talk with you 
about those.
    With that, I think he has called for a roll call vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    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?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    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. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 7; the nays are 13.
    The Chairman. Thank you again for offering the amendment 
here. The amendment fails.
    So now we are back to the legislation, as amended. The 
question is on the motion to approve S.J. Res. 58, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, can we have a roll call vote?
    The Chairman. If the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    Senator Flake. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. I just want a clarification. This is on--we 
had one Paul amendment.
    The Chairman. This is on the bill.
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    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 14 and the nays are 
7.
    The Chairman. With that, the legislation is approved.
    I want to thank everyone for working with us.
    We have one more thing--finally, we want to move the 
nomination of Joseph E. Macmanus to be Ambassador to Colombia. 
All in favor of favorably reporting this nomination, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
nomination is agreed to.
    That concludes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The committee is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1023, Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2017, 
        with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

  S. 1580, Protecting Girls' Access to Education in Vulnerable Settings 
        Act, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

  S. 3248, Turkey International Financial Institutions Act--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  S. Res. 501, 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 Government of the United 
        States to promote democracy and good governance, with 
        amendments, agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 1

  S. Res. 541, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that any 
        United States-Saudi Arabia civilian nuclear cooperation 
        agreement must prohibit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 
        enriching uranium or separating plutonium on its own territory, 
        in keeping with the strongest possible nonproliferation ``gold 
        standard,'' with amendments, agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Substitute Amendment--Resolving Clause

  S. Res. 571, A resolution condemning the ongoing illegal occupation 
        of Crimea by the Russian Federation, with amendments, agreed to 
        en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Substitute Amendment--Resolving Clause

                              NOMINATIONS

    The following nominations and FSO lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote

  Mr. Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of 
        Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu (Menendez, Cardin, 
        Kaine, Markey, and Merkley recorded as ``no'')

  Dr. Denise Natali, of New Jersey. to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations)

  Ms. Kimberly Breier, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Western Hemisphere Affairs)

                               FSO LISTS

  Michael Calvert, et al., dated March 12, 2018 (PN 1743)

  Tanya S. Urquieta, dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1800-2)

  Maureen A. Shauket, dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1802-2)

  Philip S. Goldberg, et al., dated July 18, 2018 (PN 2319)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m., in 
Room S-116, the Capitol Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of 
the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Young, Barrasso, Portman, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, 
Udall, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I call the committee business meeting to 
order. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order, as I just mentioned. On the 
agenda today, we have five pieces of legislation, 11 nominees, 
and one Foreign Service officer list.
    S. 1158, Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention 
Act, sets United States policy with respect to preventing and 
responding to atrocities, requires annual reporting on 
interagency efforts in that regard, and it requires training 
for Foreign Service officers set to be posted in at-risk 
countries. I want to thank Senators Cardin and Menendez for 
their leadership on this issue and for working with us on the 
substitute amendment which I intend to support.
    We will also consider S. 2463, the BUILD Act of 2018. I 
want to first thank Senator Coons and his staff as well as the 
many senators present who co-sponsored this legislation and 
Ranking Member Menendez for working with us to advance the 
BUILD Act. Our foreign assistance programs should enable 
developing countries to stand on their own and lead their 
citizens out of poverty through economic growth. Development 
finance institutions can play an important role in facilitating 
lending to help local businesses and attract foreign investors, 
but our current agencies are not equipped for 21st century 
challenges and opportunities.
    The BUILD will modernize our development finance 
institutions in an effort to reform and streamline the tools of 
multiple agencies while emphasizing free market principles.
    The new International Development Finance Corporation would 
advance responsible lending so citizens in recipient countries 
will be full participants in economic growth. This model would 
serve as a private sector alternative to China's aggressive and 
potentially damaging lending practices through the Belt and 
Road Initiative and other finance efforts.
    The administration and a broad coalition of stakeholders, 
including the ONE Campaign, some of whom are here today, the 
U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce have strongly embraced the goals and concept of our 
legislation and the companion bill in the House of 
Representatives. With this legislation, we can focus foreign 
aid in a way that will work towards eliminating the need for 
U.S. assistance over time at no expected cost to taxpayers. 
This effort would also create new markets for U.S. businesses 
overseas, expand American influence in the developing world, 
and support our interests for security and stability.
    We noticed S. 2497, the United States-Israel Security 
Assistance Authorization Act of 2018, but I received a letter 
to hold over this bill from Senator Paul. We will consider it 
at the next business meeting.
    S. 2779 amends the existing Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic 
Recovery Act of 2001 to address continued problems with 
governance in that country. The legislation we are considering 
today provides timely updates to the law by calling on Zimbabwe 
to implement economic and monetary reforms as well as specific 
electoral reforms that could help achieve a more inclusive and 
credible election scheduled for July the 30th. I want to thank 
Senators Flake and Coons for their support of this legislation 
and for working with us on the substitute amendment which I 
will support.
    Finally, we will consider H.R. 3776, the Cyber Diplomacy 
Act. The security and economic future of our country 
increasingly depends on maintaining a secure, reliable, and 
open internet. We need a robust agenda for cyber diplomacy with 
a clear policy and the leadership and congressional oversight 
necessary to carry it out successfully. Enactment of this 
legislation will help the State Department lead our cyber 
diplomatic efforts more effectively so the U.S. can pursue--can 
pursue and promote policies in cyberspace that defend American 
interests and values.
    Thank you for listening to that. Senator Menendez, I am 
sure, has comments.

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We come together 
with a large number of very important pieces of legislation and 
a fairly large number of nominees. And I want to express my 
gratitude to the chairman in terms of working together to come 
to the legislative agenda that we are going to be considering 
today. I think we got to this mostly on a bipartisan basis.
    I want to take a moment just to, in the spirit of that 
bipartisanship, to urge the chairman--I know he has been 
trying. But we have critical issues happening in the world from 
North Korea to Russia, to the Central American crisis that has 
children being stripped from their parents. I hope we can get 
the administration to send some witnesses here so we can 
discuss what U.S. foreign policy is in these places in the 
world.
    The Chairman. Can I respond?
    Senator Menendez. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. Look, we have been trying to get Pompeo in 
for weeks. I have got a call with him today at 1:15. I know 
that you all know we were supposed to actually have an all-
Senate meeting relative to North Korea. I asked a reporter in 
the hall--a reporter in the hallway asked me if there--you 
know, what I knew about North Korea and I said ``nothing.'' And 
he said, does it bother you that you know nothing, and I said, 
well, there may be nothing to know, I do not know. But we are 
going to--meaning it is very--it is very hard to know what came 
out of the summit. I have no idea.
    So, we are pressing Pompeo to come in. I will let you know 
this afternoon as to whether we were successful in setting a 
date. I have no idea why we cannot get him. It is very 
frustrating, but I know this committee needs to hear from him 
on all the pockets you just mentioned.
    Senator Menendez. Well, I appreciate your efforts, and I 
will join you. I will make a call to him myself today. Look, 
whether there was something that came out of the summit or not, 
the question is, what is our pathway forward, and what is our 
strategy moving forward. And that, I think, should be 
elucidated for the committee which has jurisdiction over what 
foreign policy is in the United States. So, I appreciate your 
efforts, and I look forward to echoing it as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well 
as Senator Coons for your work on the BUILD Act which creates a 
new International Development Finance Corporation, a more 
empowered version of the Overseas Private Investment Corp, 
known as OPIC, which was established in 1971 and operates on a 
self-sustaining basis, with no net cost to American taxpayers. 
I have long supported OPIC's mission, but for too long OPIC has 
lacked a stable, legislative authorization, falling behind the 
development finance institutions of both our allies and 
important strategic competitors like China. So, I welcome this 
recognition of the importance of our economic institutions, 
informed by our respect for human rights and other important 
safeguards.
    I want to thank the chairman for working with me to 
strengthen the development mandate of the legislation, 
accommodating my desire to add a chief development officer, a 
more robust accountability mechanism, a development advisory 
council to keep up with the Agency's performance measures, and 
reporting requirements that enhance lines of authority and 
communication between the new agency and AID. I also appreciate 
both the sponsors' willingness to work with our colleagues to 
support the objective of the legislation, to incorporate many 
of their amendments into the manager's package, and I look 
forward to close oversight of this new agency.
    I am pleased to have worked with Senator Corker on the 
substitute amendment to the Cyber Diplomacy Act before the 
committee today. It addresses important questions relating to 
the norms and operations in the cyber domain that are 
vulnerable to misuse by malign states and non-state actors. It 
is critical that we have a clear and cogent whole-of-government 
approach on international cyber issues in order to maintain a 
stable and free cyber domain that respects freedom of 
expression. I also want to thank the chairman for including 
many of my suggestions, including measures aimed at protecting 
Americans' personal information in cyberspace. I know there are 
a number of amendments that have been included in the manager's 
package, and I intend to support it.
    I am disappointed that we are not going to consider the 
U.S.-Israel Security Assistance bill today, and I am glad to 
hear the chairman say we will consider it whenever our next 
markup is. I am a strong supporter of the legislation. Israel 
is our closest ally in the Middle East. It is facing mounting 
threats on all of its borders, and I believe we have to ensure 
that it has the resources, and systems, and cooperation to 
respond to those threats.
    I would like to thank Senators Flake and Coons for their 
work on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment 
Act, and on Zimbabwe in general. I appreciate the collegial 
manner in which staff worked to incorporate changes into the 
substitute under consideration. With elections only weeks away 
in Zimbabwe, we will be closely watching whether opposition 
candidates are allowed to campaign freely, whether 
international observers are accredited in a timely fashion, and 
whether the military, in or out of uniform, will respect the 
secrecy of the ballot. I hope the fact that we are considering 
this legislation and the swiftness which we have ushered 
through the nominee for the ambassador to Zimbabwe will be 
viewed in Zimbabwe as a sign of the strong interest the Senate 
has in what is happening in that country.
    Finally, I want to thank Senator Corker and his staff and 
particularly Senator Cardin in getting the Elie Wiesel Genocide 
and Atrocities Prevention Act on the agenda today. 
Unfortunately, we live in a world where genocide and mass 
atrocities are still occurring with some regularity. Most 
recently, we have seen these crimes perpetuated in Burma, Iraq, 
South Sudan, and Syria. Ignoring genocide, war crimes, and 
crimes against humanity that continue to rage throughout the 
world sends a message to the global community that such 
atrocities will be tolerated. That is not the message we want 
to send, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
bill so that Elie Wiesel's dream of ``never again'' can become 
a reality.
    We have a large number of nominees. I support Admiral 
Harris' nomination as our ambassador to the Republic of Korea. 
He has a long and distinguished record of service, and his 
commitment to continue to serve our Nation during these trying 
times is admirable. I have a few other statements about some of 
the other nominees. I intend generally to support the nominees. 
There is one that I will not support based upon the past 
statements made about this nominee that I think undermine the 
essence of diplomacy and the importance of words, particularly 
in the context of diplomacy. When we get to that moment, I will 
be asked to be recorded as no.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement 
be included in the record.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection, your full 
statement will be entered.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Menendez follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Senator Robert Menendez

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this business meeting to 
consider a number of bills and a large number of nominees. Before I 
talk about some of these items, though, I want to reiterate--publicly--
that I believe this committee should be holding more hearings on 
pressing topics with witnesses from the administration. From North 
Korea, to Russia, to a crisis on our very own border that is tearing 
families apart and damaging our moral leadership and credibility on the 
global stage, this committee must do its job. I hope we can put 
together some meaningful hearings this summer and into the fall.
BUILD Act
    I want to thank the chairman and Senator Coons for their work on 
the BUILD Act, which would create a new International Development 
Finance Corporation--which is really a more-empowered version of the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation--known as OPIC. OPIC was 
established in 1971 and operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net 
cost to American taxpayers.
    I have long supported OPIC's mission. But for too long, OPIC has 
lacked a stable, legislative authorization, and was falling behind the 
development finance institutions of both our allies and important 
strategic competitors like China. So I welcome this recognition of the 
importance of our economic institutions, informed by our respect for 
human rights and other important safeguards.
    I want to thank the chairman for working with me to strengthen the 
development mandate of this legislation. The Chairman accommodated my 
desire to add a Chief Development Officer, a more robust Accountability 
Mechanism, a Development Advisory Council, improvements to the agency's 
performance measures and reporting requirements, and enhanced lines of 
authority and communication between the new agency and USAID.
    I also appreciate the sponsors' willingness to work with our 
colleagues who support the objectives of this legislation to 
incorporate many of their amendments into the Manager's Package. Mr. 
Chairman, I look forward to close oversight of this new agency.
Cyber Diplomacy Act of 2018
    I was pleased to work with Senator Corker on the Substitute 
Amendment to the Cyber Diplomacy Act of 2018 before the committee 
today. This Act addresses important questions related to the norms and 
operations in the cyber domain that are vulnerable to misuse by malign 
state and non-state actors.
    It is critical that we have a clear and cogent whole-of-government 
approach to international cyber issues, in order to maintain a stable 
and free cyber domain that respects freedom of expression. I also want 
to thank the chairman for including many of my suggestions, including 
measures aimed at protecting Americans' personal information in 
cyberspace.
    I also know there are a number of amendments that have been 
included in a Manager's package. I believe the Manager's package adds 
to our efforts today and I intend to support it.
U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Bill
    I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel Security 
Assistance Authorization Act of 2018. Israel is our closest ally in the 
Middle East, and is facing mounting threats on all borders. We will 
ensure that Israel has the resources, assistance, and cooperation to 
respond to threats on any of her borders. I am heartened that even 
though we on this committee are pushing back against assistance cuts to 
nearly every other account and every other country and every other 
crisis, at least when it comes to Israel there is no daylight and no 
dispute that U.S. assistance is in our national security interest.
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill
    Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Senators Flake and Coons for their 
work on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act, and 
on Zimbabwe in general. I appreciate the collegial manner with which 
staff worked to incorporate changes into the substitute under 
consideration.
    With elections only weeks away in Zimbabwe, I will be closely 
watching whether opposition candidates are allowed to campaign freely; 
whether international observers are accredited in a timely fashion; and 
whether the military--in or out of uniform--will respect the secrecy of 
the ballot. I hope the fact that we are considering this legislation, 
and the swiftness with which we have ushered through the nominee for 
Ambassador to Zimbabwe, will be viewed in Zimbabwe as a sign of the 
strong interest the Senate has in what's happening in that country.
Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act
    I want to thank Senator Corker and his staff for working with 
Senator Cardin, and myself, to get the Elie Wiesel Genocide and 
Atrocities Prevention Act on the agenda today. Unfortunately, we live 
in a world where genocide and mass atrocities are still occurring with 
some regularity. Most recently, we have seen these crimes perpetrated 
in Burma, Iraq, South Sudan and Syria. Ignoring the genocide, war 
crimes, and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the 
world sends a message to the global community that such atrocities will 
be tolerated. That is not the message we want to send. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, so that Elie Wiesel's 
dream of ``never again'' can become a reality.
    Finally, I am pleased with many of the nominees before us today. In 
particular, I support Admiral Harris' nomination as our Ambassador to 
the Republic of Korea. He has a long and distinguished record of 
service, and his commitment to continue to serve our nation during 
these trying times is admirable. Our Ambassador's post in Seoul has 
been vacant for far too long as the administration has dithered about 
appointing an ambassador and other senior level State Department 
leadership. Given the challenges we face it is imperative that we 
improve our engagement across the region, especially with allies like 
Korea.
    There is, however, one nomination I do not intend to support. I 
found a number of things in Robin Bernstein's paperwork and answers to 
questions for the record to be problematic. But I will focus on just 
one thing publicly here today, though, because I think we as members of 
this committee need to send an important message that toxic political 
discourse--particularly by people who would like to represent the 
United States as diplomats--is unacceptable.
    In 2016, Ms. Bernstein stated, ``[t]his corruption that Hillary 
Clinton has committed [is] treasonous.'' When asked about that 
statement by this committee, Ms. Bernstein had no satisfying 
explanation for what she was talking about. She showed no contrition, 
made no disavowal, and in Questions for the Record she offered a--how 
can I say this--novel definition of what the word ``treason'' means.
    For the record, the United States Constitution defines the word 
``treason'' very specifically. I would hope anyone seeking a high-level 
government position would know that. All Ms. Bernstein said in defense 
of these comments was that ``as a representative of the United States 
[her] comments must be guarded.''
    Of course really what Ms. Bernstein was doing when she made that 
statement in 2016 was recklessly throwing around what should be 
considered a very serious accusation--to damage the President's 
political opponent. Now, what she said may be evidence of loyalty to 
Donald Trump--but it is not the language of a diplomat.
    The currency of a diplomat is her words, and Ms. Bernstein's words 
have contributed to the toxic nature of today's political discourse and 
dialogue. I have already spoken on the Senate floor about the damage 
caused by offensive and inappropriate statements made by Ambassador 
Richard Grenell who, when he came before this committee as a nominee, 
similarly tried to differentiate between what he has said when he was 
in government and the offensive things he said when out of government.
    Unfortunately, in Mr. Grenell's case, past performance was 
indicative of his future inappropriate behavior, which has already 
damaged our relationship with Germany.
    Mr. Chairman, I note for the record that I also have concerns about 
Ms. Bernstein's record on payment of taxes as well as how she will deal 
with President Trump's business interests in the Dominican Republic. 
But I chose to emphasize her statement from the 2016 presidential 
campaign here today because the fact of the matter is that in public 
discourse, words matter. I will oppose Ms. Bernstein's nomination today 
and urge my colleagues to oppose as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Are there any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. We will now--yes, sir.
    Senator Coons. I will just briefly say I just want to 
express my thanks to you, Chairman Corker, and to Ranking 
Member Menendez. You have been terrific to work with on the 
ZDERA amendment that I have led with Senator Flake and Senator 
Booker. We had a terrific trip to Zimbabwe. This is an 
important outcome of that. I am grateful to Senator Rubio for 
his partnership in the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance 
Authorization Act which I, too, am disappointed we are not 
taking up today and look forward to taking up. It has the 
support of over 60 senators.
    But more than anything else, our work together on the BUILD 
Act and the very significant work Senator Menendez made to--he 
insisted and focuses on development and improve the bill in the 
ways in which it will finally modernize and strengthen our work 
and private capital to fight poverty and to compete with China. 
I am very excited about that today, and I am grateful for your 
leadership on that, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thanks for pushing it. With that, 
we will move to S. 2463, the BUILD Act of 2018. I am pleased 
that we were able to negotiate a manager's amendment which 
incorporates changes from the first degree amendments filed by 
Senators Cardin, Kaine, and Markey. The manager's package makes 
a number of changes, including carrying forward existing law 
with respect to a number of provisions, including those on 
small businesses, human rights, environmental standards, and 
worker rights. It also clarifies that the chairman of the board 
of the corporation will be the Secretary of State. I will be 
supporting the manager's amendment and opposing other 
amendments.
    I will entertain a motion to approve the manager's 
amendment by voice vote.
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the manager's amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, if I could talk to this, 
and I am going to speak--I want to be recorded as a no vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. All those opposed?
    Senator Barrasso. Opposed.
    The Chairman. Anybody else--with that, the ayes have it, 
and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any others that would like to be recorded as a 
no? Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Cardin. I would just ask to be added as a co-
sponsor.
    The Chairman. Okay, thank you. Without objection. Are there 
further amendments?
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I have additional amendments as 
well, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yeah, and you wanted--I thought you wanted to 
speak to those.
    Senator Barrasso. I do, and then I want to speak to the 
reason I opposed the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Barrasso. Just with regard to the BUILD Act first, 
Mr. Chairman, I support reorganizing, consolidating, 
streamlining programs, which is the stated goal of the BUILD 
Act, because I think it can help to eliminate duplication and 
focus on the strategic priorities that we agree on. It is 
important for Congress to work to improve coordination, the 
efficiencies, effectiveness. I think we really do need to 
reform the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC. I 
think it has been long overdue. I think we need a smarter OPIC, 
not a larger OPIC, which is, I think, what we are getting here, 
and the manager's amendment contributes to that.
    You know, in May of this year, Daniel Runde of the CSIS 
testified before our committee in support of the BUILD Act. He 
said, ``As I wrote in an article, we should not be eliminating 
OPIC. We should be putting it on steroids,'' his words. He went 
on to say, ``And so, I am pleased to see that we are putting it 
on steroids.'' I think we should all be wary any time that 
there is an effort to put a government program on steroids.
    This bill doubles the liability limit, and I have an 
amendment about that. It allows the U.S. Government to be a 
minority owner in private enterprises overseas. It picks 
winners and losers in the energy space, which I think the 
manager's amendment goes on to do more of that. So, my 
amendments are intended to address the concerns that I have and 
hopefully improve the bill. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for the comments, and do 
you want to offer some amendments?
    Senator Barrasso. Yes.
    The Chairman. Let us see here. Do you want to have votes on 
the amendments?
    Senator Barrasso. I do on my two amendments, but we are now 
on the manager's--the manager's amendment has been adopted with 
me as a no vote.
    The Chairman. Have we gone all the way through? Okay. Okay. 
All right. Let us go ahead. Do you want to call them all up?
    Senator Barrasso. I will start with Barrasso Amendment 
Number 4 and Barrasso Amendment Number 2.
    The Chairman. Okay. Do you want to speak to those?
    Senator Barrasso. I would. I would like to call up Barrasso 
Amendment Number 4. This amendment is one that deals with the 
contingent liability which is currently at $29 billion. I say 
it should go to $35 billion with my amendment. The maximum 
contingent liability in the bill, the manager's approved bill, 
is at $60 billion. So, we are currently at $29. It goes to $60. 
I am saying let us take it up to $35 instead of to $60.
    When you take a look at OPIC's exposure as of September of 
this past year, we have been $23 billion total. So, as a 
result, OPIC still has over--about $6 billion in unused 
contingent liability. The other programs, including the 
Development Credit Authority, have a portfolio of around $5 
billion. So, under my amendment, the new corporation would have 
an additional $7 billion on top of the current amount which we 
already have excess availability. So, this is still a huge 
increase in OPIC's liability ceiling, but not as much as 
proposed in the legislation ahead of us.
    The BUILD Act doubles the size of OPIC. It provides for a 
mechanism for automatic growth, which is my other amendment 
dealing with automatic growth. I support reorganizing, 
consolidating, streamlining the programs which is a stated goal 
of the BUILD Act. And, you know, it can help to eliminate 
duplication. It can focus on our priorities. But I do not 
support doubling the liability risk, and I think that a 
reasonable increase would be more appropriate, especially as a 
new corporation is being created. So, you know, we can work 
within existing budgetary commitments to achieve our goals, and 
if this new corporation demonstrates effectiveness, responsible 
use of taxpayer money, then we can come back and revisit, and I 
would not have any problem increasing contingency liability. 
But I do recommend at this time a positive vote on Amendment 
Number 4, and I would ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Any other comments? Yes?
    Senator Coons. I will just simply add, if I might, Mr. 
Chairman, that the Senate has not reconsidered this cap in 20 
years. And for comparison, China Development Bank has a loan 
book size of $400 billion, and if you were to benchmark our DFI 
against our European allies as a percentage of GDP, it is 
significantly underpowered. Some had initially urged $100 
billion, and we ended up at $60 as a compromise. I urge a no 
vote on this amendment.
    The Chairman. I am going to vote no also and call on 
Senator Portman. When we began this, and Ted Yoho, I guess, is 
leading this effort in the House, they were pushing for $100 
billion. I think the administration may have even been pushing 
for $100 billion. When you look at this compared to what other 
countries are doing, it is significantly different. This is 
done expectedly at no cost to the taxpayers, and, therefore, I 
oppose the amendment, but I appreciate it. And in fairness, I 
mean, we stepped it back $40 billion from the original request, 
and that is why there is a cost of living increase that is 
built into it.
    Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Well, you said pretty much what I was 
planning to say. First, I thank Senator Barrasso for being a 
watchdog on the fiscal side. I do not think this will end up 
costing the taxpayer anything. That is the idea. What it will 
do, I think, is position us to be able to compete.
    I just left a hearing on the European Subcommittee, and the 
comment was made that $24 billion has been invested by China in 
Europe just since 2001. Of course, we all know of the massive 
investment in Africa, which dwarfs anything the United States 
has done and, frankly, puts us at a competitive disadvantage. 
So, this enables our companies at least to have the ability to 
try to get in there and compete. I think it is in our national 
security interest.
    And you are right, some wanted to go for a higher, $60 to 
$100 billion, and I think this is the reasonable amount. I am 
an original co-sponsor of the legislation. I am planning to 
vote no, but understanding that your concerns are well placed 
and we need to watch it carefully.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. I agree.
    Senator Barrasso. I will go after Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to echo what 
Senator Portman said because we just left that hearing with 
Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell, who made the point 
very strongly that we are not doing enough to invest in parts 
of Europe, particularly the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean, 
and that we are being way outspent by China and Russia, and we 
need to do more. So, I think this gives us an opportunity to do 
that.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, sir?
    Senator Barrasso. Just as a final comment, when last I was 
in Africa, and we talk about correctly the investment made by 
China. If you take the road up in Addis Ababa to Project Mercy 
Hospital that we are very involved in there, and I had students 
from the United States go to help. And you are taking this big 
road with a sign built by the French and the people of China--
from China. So, you are right, China is making an incredible 
effort--and doing it in a different way to influence minds 
there in a different way.
    And there are ways to look into the way that we do that, 
but China is reportedly committing a trillion dollars, 
listening to President Xi's speech, to their Belt and Road 
Initiative. We are not going to be able to match China's 
spending dollar for dollar. I am just making sure we use our 
resources strategically to address China's increasing 
influence, but it is not that we have a dollar for dollar 
match. We will never be able to do that. With that, I would 
happy with a roll call vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Flake?
    Senator Flake. I appreciate the concerns that Senator 
Barrasso has. I share his concern in terms of exposure to the 
taxpayer.
    The Chairman. Yeah, thank you. Thank you both. With that, 
the clerk will call the roll.
    The Chairman. 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?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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 Menendez. 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. No. [Laughter.]
    Senator Shaheen. You are just voting against Booker no 
matter what he does? [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Typically, it is a good signal.
    Senator Risch. That is not a bad position to be in.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the nays are 16, the ayes are 5.
    The Chairman. The amendment fails, and I think you may have 
another one.
    Senator Barrasso. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I did talk 
to Representative Yoho this morning along these lines. He knew 
I was going to bring these amendments up. I would like to call 
up Barrasso Amendment Number 2. This is the only other 
amendment I will bring up. This amendment removes this 
mechanized automatic increase to the maximum contingent 
liability. The maximum liability is the total amount of 
insurance and financing that OPIC can have, understanding at 
any outstanding length of time under this bill, the liability 
limit would automatically increase every 5 years based on the 
Consumer Price Index.
    This would allow for the corporation to continue to grow 
into perpetuity without any additional congressional 
authorization required. In essence, this eliminates the 
congressional authorization process in favor of a mechanism 
underlaid into program performance, risk, or even necessity. 
And Congress' role and responsibility, I think, is to evaluate 
the program and make decisions on authorization levels.
    As complicated as it might be at times, the appropriations 
and authorization process is fundamental to our oversight, so I 
want to increase the amount of liability taken by the--if you 
want to increase the amount of liability taken by the U.S. 
Government, we ought to step in and do so. So, it should not be 
the Consumer Price Index making those decisions for us. So, 
that is my amendment, and I recommend adoption, and would ask 
for a roll call vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thanks for your comments and the 
way you have handled this, and I know that you and Ted have had 
conversations, and you have had them with our office. Again, 
the push in the beginning was for $100 billion. We were able to 
negotiate it in a bipartisan way at $60 billion with the COLA. 
The bill only authorizes for 7 years, so we have a chance to 
look at it again in 7 years. It will not just go on ad 
infinitum, but I appreciate your fiscal concerns and those of 
Amber.
    And with that, 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?
    Senator Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy. No by proxy. Excuse me.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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 Menendez. 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. Mr. Chairman, I will be a no. [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Booker, I will be a no. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the nays are 16, the ayes are 5.
    The Chairman. The amendment fails. Are there any other 
amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve S. 2463, as 
amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Booker. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. 2463, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Chairman. Barrasso recorded as a ``no.'' With that, the 
ayes have it, and the legislation is agreed to, and I want to 
thank everybody for working hard on a very important piece of 
legislation. Would you like to say something, sir?
    Senator Markey. Yes, I do. I just want to thank you and the 
other members for helping to include the environmental language 
in the bill. I think it was a very important statement that we 
continue to make to ensure that we continue to impress upon 
these other countries how important this is.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and before you step down, thank 
you for your efforts in helping us with that, so thank you for 
mentioning that.
    Now, we will move to H.R. 3776, the Cyber Diplomacy Act. I 
would like to thank Senators Gardner, Kaine, and Cardin for 
working with us on the manager's amendment which incorporates 
each of their first degree amendments. I would also like to 
thank Senator Markey for agreeing to work with us on his 
Digital Age bill at a future business meeting. I want to thank 
you for not adding it to this, but working with us in the 
future.
    Senator Markey. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you 
for that.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Markey. I support, you know, the legislation and 
the way you are moving it out. But I do think it is important 
for us to look at the totality of what China and is doing in 
terms of its digital innovations, their development strategy, 
their political strategy, but also so that we understand that 
we do not have a play in terms of how it is impacting democracy 
in countries around the world. So, that is the other piece of 
legislation I am withdrawing.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. But I think it is important for us to work 
on that aspect of it, and I am looking forward to working with 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. After we have had time to fully 
discuss and work through the provisions, we look forward to 
bringing it forward. I will be supporting the revised manager's 
amendment and opposing other amendments. I will entertain a 
motion to approve the revised manager's amendment by voice 
vote.
    Senator Menendez. 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 revised 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.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 3776, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve H.R. 3776, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next, without objection, we will consider en bloc S. 1158, 
the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, as 
amended by the substitute amendment, and S. 2779, the Zimbabwe 
Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act of 2018, as 
amended by the substitute and the revised Flake 1 Amendment to 
the substitute. Would any members like to give additional 
comments on either of these pieces of legislation before we 
approve them?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
    The Chairman. Yeah, absolutely.
    Senator Cardin. I want to thank you and Senator Menendez 
for your work on the Eli Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities 
Prevention Act, and I want to thank Senator Young for his 
leadership in putting that together, and Senator Rubio and 
other members of this committee. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else?
    Senator Flake. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Yes? Senator Flake.
    Senator Flake. I want to thank the chair and ranking member 
for working with Senator Coons and me, and Senator Booker and 
others, on this ZDERA Act. This is important, and incorporating 
the amendment, which is technical. And also we had great help 
from our post in Zimbabwe to work through this and make sure 
that this just is--it just affects in a positive way the 
elections coming up in less than a month. And it is important 
after 37 years to have elections in Zimbabwe. So, thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you both, Senator Flake and 
Senator Coons, for pushing us on this and making this happen.
    Is there a motion to approve en bloc these two--these two 
bills?
    Senator Menendez. 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. 1158 and S. 2779, as amended.
    All those 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.
    Finally, we will consider all of the nominations on the 
agenda and the noticed FSO list, including Mr. Stephen Akard to 
be director of the Office of Foreign Missions, Ms. Robin 
Bernstein to be the Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, the 
Honorable Kenneth George to be Ambassador to Uruguay, Mr. Harry 
Harris to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Mr. 
Joseph Mondello to be Ambassador to Trinidad, the Honorable 
Georgette Mosbacher to be Ambassador to Poland, the Honorable 
Tibor Nagy to be Assistant Secretary of State for African 
Affairs, Mr. Gordon Sondland to be Ambassador to the European 
Union, Mr. Ronald Gidwitz, to be Ambassador to Belgium, Ms. 
Cherith Chalet to be alternate representative to the U.N. 
General Assembly and representative to the United Nations for 
U.N. Management and Reform, and the Honorable Brian Nichols to 
be Ambassador to Zimbabwe.
    Is there a motion to report favorably these nominations and 
the FSO lists en bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to report favorably the nominations and FSO lists.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of all except 
that I ask to be recorded as a ``no''on Bernstein, and I 
understand that Senators Markey and Kaine would also like to be 
recorded as a ``no.''
    Senator Booker. Would you add me to that list as well?
    Senator Coons. And I will join as a no as well.
    Senator Udall. The same.
    Senator Merkley. And I.
    Voice. Do you want to do a roll call?
    The Chairman. I do not really want to do a roll call on 
that one. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. What is that? Yeah. So, we have already--we 
have already approved the list en bloc, and I think what you 
all are saying is even though they are all approved, you would 
like to be recorded as disapproving.
    Senator Booker. Exactly.
    The Chairman. Is that acceptable?
    Senator Menendez. I did not object to your en bloc motion 
in order to move everything. But I want to, and I believe 
others want as well,to be recorded as a ``no'' on the Bernstein 
nomination based on her outrageous comments about a 
presidential candidate.
    The Chairman. Understood. So, those that want to be 
recorded as a ``no,'' even though they have all passed, are 
Senators Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Merkley, and Booker, 
Markey, and Kaine.
    Senator Menendez. Markey and Kaine.
    Senator Risch. Everybody with a ``D.''
    The Chairman. So, with that, the ayes have it, and the 
nominations and the FSO List 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.
    I want to thank the ranking member for working with us the 
way he did and the other members of the committee. Yes, sir.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I also just wanted to thank 
the staff, your staff, and Senator Menendez's staff.
    The Chairman. And with that, without objection, the 
committee will stand adjourned. The meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. Res. 557, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate 
        regarding the strategic importance of NATO to the collective 
        security of the transatlantic region and urging its member 
        states to work together at the upcoming summit to strengthen 
        the alliance--held over until next business meeting

  S. 2497, United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act 
        of 2018, with amendments--agreed to by roll call vote (20-1)

          Ayes: Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, 
        Barrasso, Isakson (proxy), Portman (proxy), Menendez, Cardin, 
        Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
        Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Paul

    Substitute and Udall Amendments agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

     Udall 1st Degree Amendment

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment--not agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

    The following nominations and FSO lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote, as modified

  Mr. Randy W. Berry, of Colorado, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

  The Honorable Donald Lu, of California, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Kyrgyz Republic

  The Honorable Alaina B. Teplitz, of Colorado, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri 
        Lanka, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
        compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
        the United States of America to the Republic of Maldives

                               FSO LISTS

  Polly Catherine Dunford-Zahar, et al., dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1800), 
        as modified

  Sandillo Banerjee, et al., dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1801), as modified

  Peter A. Malnak, et al., dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1802), as modified

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in 
Room S-116 the Capitol Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of 
the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, 
Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, Barrasso, Paul, Menendez, 
Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and 
Merkley.

             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.
    On the agenda today there are two pieces of legislation, 
three nominees, and three FSO lists. We noticed S. Res. 557, 
which expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the strategic 
importance of NATO to the collective security of the 
transatlantic region, and urges its member states to work 
together at the upcoming summit to strengthen the alliance. I 
have received a letter to hold over this resolution, and so we 
will consider it at the next business meeting, which will be 
tomorrow right after the first vote.
    S. 2497, the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization 
Act of 2018, would enact into law the 10-year memorandum of 
understanding of that President Obama reached with Israel in 
2016 regarding defense assistance and strategic cooperation. 
The bill authorizes $3.3 billion per year in military aid to 
Israel through 2028. It also encourages American-Israeli 
cooperation in space exploration, international development, 
and the countering of drone threats. More broadly, since a 
Republican-led Congress is now taking up a generous aid package 
that a Democratic administration assembled, this bill reflects 
America's strong bipartisan support for our partner, Israel. I 
would like to thank Senators Rubio and Coons for introducing 
this bill and for working with us on the substitute amendment 
which I will be supporting.
    Senator Menendez, do you have any comments?

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

    Senator Menendez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply 
disappointed that we are not going to consider the NATO 
resolution, but I want to thank you for working with us to get 
this important resolution on the agenda, and I look forward to 
it being on a special meeting tomorrow, which I would certainly 
urge all my colleagues to attend. NATO has been a pillar of 
America's security for decades, and it was our NATO allies who 
rushed to defend us in the first and only invocation of Article 
5 of the NATO treaty after the tragic events of September 11th. 
This was the first and only time Article 5 was called.
    NATO partners continue to put their lives on the line 
alongside Americans to safeguard our common security. We need 
renewed efforts by the United States to reinforce the alliance, 
not diminish it. So, I will strongly support that resolution 
tomorrow. I also will support the chairman's important 
amendment since I think we are not going to have as much time 
tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, so I will do this now.
    Unequivocally supporting the sovereignty, independence, and 
territorial integrity of Ukraine and condemning Russia's 
illegal occupation of Crimea. Along with Senator Portman, I am 
introducing a separate resolution calling for an end to the 
human rights abuses suffered in Crimea under Russia's illegal 
occupation, which the Kremlin would love for us and others to 
forget.
    As it relates to the U.S. Security Assistance bill, I am a 
co-sponsor and a strong supporter of the legislation. Israel is 
our closest ally in the Middle East, and it is facing mounting 
threats on all borders. We will ensure that Israel has the 
resources, assistance, and cooperation to respond to threats on 
any of their borders. And I am heartened that even though we on 
this committee are pushing back against assistance cuts to 
nearly every other account and in every other country and every 
other crisis, at least when it comes to Israel, there is no 
daylight and dispute that U.S. assistance is in our national 
security interests.
    I support all of the veteran career State Department 
nominees before us today. They serve their country well, and I 
support their swift confirmation.
    The Chairman. All right. Just to follow up on the NATO 
piece, we were just in the region last week, especially with 
countries on the border of Russia. I think it is really 
important that we weigh in on this resolution and pass it. I do 
hope everybody can stop by after the first vote tomorrow to 
make sure we have a quorum to do so. And I, too, regret that it 
is being held over.
    Are there any other comments?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just really 
want to underscore and thank you for convening us tomorrow in 
regards to the NATO resolution. It is critically important that 
we speak on this. This is one of the critical issues of our 
time. This resolution, I want to thank Senator Wicker, who I 
worked with on this resolution, Senator Tillis, and Shaheen, 
and others.
    I am disappointed we cannot do this in this meeting here 
while we can have all the normal type of discussion about it 
and listen to each other, but that is the right of any senator. 
And I thank you for being willing to bring this up tomorrow.
    Senator Shaheen. I would just like to add to that. Senator 
Tillis and I are going to the NATO summit. We are leaving 
tomorrow, and we will be there on Thursday. And I think it 
would be really important for us to be able to have a copy of 
that resolution that we can share with our NATO allies to let 
them know that Congress, at least the Senate, feels very 
strongly about the importance of NATO to our national security. 
So, I really agree with everyone who said we hope we can pass 
this tomorrow because it is a very important message to be 
sending to the summit.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Are we talking about everything or just 
NATO?
    The Chairman. Why do we not go ahead and do that? Let us 
talk about----
    Senator Rubio. Well, I just want to thank you and the 
ranking member for putting up the U.S.-Israel Security 
Assistance Authorization Act. I think we are up to 70 co-
sponsors. You have described what the bill does, and I think it 
is important for us to continue to reassert the importance of 
that relationship given the threats that Israel now faces 
emanating not just in general from the--from the region writ 
large, but now also incredible the instability among the 
Palestinian Authority, and also now on their northern border 
going into Syria with all that is happening there. Iranian 
forces and Hezbollah are now deployed closer to Israel than at 
any time in recent history, perhaps at any time ever.
    And on the NATO resolution, I just want to echo whatever 
has already been said, and I look forward tomorrow to having 
that vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. One thousand and forty-four. That is the 
number of NATO combat deaths, non-U.S. NATO combat deaths, in 
Afghanistan. And as you know, Mr. Chairman and Senator Flake in 
a recent trip to visit several northern European NATO allies, 
they are gravely concerned that in a fight over getting to 2 
percent GDP, somehow the United States no longer appreciates 
and respects that enormous sacrifice. I am grateful you are 
pushing forward tomorrow. I think it is incredibly important 
that we adopt a resolution sending a clear and strong signal of 
support and respect and appreciation for the sacrifices of our 
NATO allies.
    And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for 
making it possible for Senator Rubio and me to work well 
together on the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization 
Act, and express gratitude for our 68 co-sponsors. I think it 
is vitally important that we send signals to our allies around 
the world we continue to keep our commitments.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, in response to Senator Coons, 
I could not agree with you more about the NATO alliance being 
the most successful military alliance in the history of the 
world. Having said that, I also understand that the Europeans 
have been nervous because the President has not been as excited 
perhaps as other presidents have been about that alliance. I 
think most of us who have worked with it for years and years 
and years do have excitement about alliance.
    But having said that, that does not excuse the Europeans 
really looking the other way when it comes to their 
obligations. I mean, this thing is--was set up certainly for 
our good, but they have got a lot more to lose than we do where 
they are, right on the front line. And it is good to see them 
upping their game, and I think we should all congratulate them 
for that. But I do not think we should--I do not think we 
should in any way take the pressure off from urging them to do 
what they should be doing. So, I think we are all in the same 
boat on this, but I think they need to hear it.
    The Chairman. That is why the resolution specifically 
states that they need to move----
    Senator Risch. Exactly. Exactly.
    The Chairman. Okay, so that is--we can----
    Senator Risch. I appreciate that, no. I think we are on all 
the same page on this, I really do.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. We will now move to S. 2497, the U.S.-Israel 
Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018. First, I would 
like to consider the substitute and Udall Amendment 1. Would 
any members like to speak to either of these amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the substitute 
and the Udall Number 1 Amendment to the substitute en bloc by 
voice vote?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. It is so moved and seconded. The question is 
on the motion to approve these amendments en bloc.
    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 further amendments?
    Senator Paul. Yes, I have an amendment. We have a $21 
trillion debt. We borrow about $2 million every minute. Admiral 
Mullen and others have stated that the number one threat to our 
national security is actually our debt. We are accumulating it 
at an alarming pace. I think that we need to reassess and 
debate as a country whether or not it makes economic sense for 
us to borrow money from China to send it to other countries. 
Even if these countries are our allies or our friends, does it 
make sense to give or send them money that we have to borrow 
from somewhere else?
    Interest on our debt is about $300 billion now. It is the 
second-largest item only to military spending in our budget. 
Within the space of the next 5 to 10 years, interest even at 
low interest rates will overtake military spending in our 
budget. We have sort of a doomsday scenario coming with regard 
to our spending habits in which interest and our debt will 
crowd out all of the spending. So, I think we do need to re-
look at our spending both to Israel as well as to Egypt, to the 
PLO, to all entities really that we are borrowing money, 
basically from China, to send to these countries.
    Even many in Israel have begun to question whether or not 
this makes Israel stronger. Benjamin Netanyahu said before a 
joint session of Congress, ``I believe that we can now say that 
Israel has reached childhood's end, that it has matured enough 
to begin approaching a state of self-reliance. We are going to 
achieve economic independence from the United States.'' This 
was a great and forward-looking comment. It is from 1996. We 
have not gotten very far since then at reassessing how much 
money we send.
    We have sent over time $134 billion to Israel, I think $78 
billion to Egypt. In Egypt's case, quite a bit of it was 
directly stolen by the Mubarak family who are said to be worth 
between $15 and $20 billion, and were worth nothing before the 
aid began to flow in the 70s and 80s.
    Also from Egypt, Naftali Bennett said in recent years when 
he was serving as the Israeli minister of economics and leader 
of the Home Party, he said, ``Today U.S. military aid is 
roughly 1 percent of Israel's economy. I think generally we 
need to free ourselves from it. We have to do it responsibly, 
but our situation today is very different from 20 to 30 years 
ago.''
    If you look at Israel's economy, they have become much 
stronger over time. With a $373 billion economy, the per capita 
income is over $37,000. They are easily the richest country in 
the Middle East. If you look at the dominance of Israel's 
military, unquestionably probably tenfold greater than anybody 
in the region. I am not saying that we pull back on our 
strategic alliance with them or that we do not sell them 
weapons. I am just saying that perhaps we have got to reassess 
whether or not we should borrow money from China to send it to 
them.
    There are other members of Israel's populace and punditry 
who argue that it actually in some ways weakens Israel's 
defense industry. Yarden Gazit of the Jerusalem Institute for 
Market Studies writes that, ``The requirement that Israel 
purchase U.S. weapons raised Israeli acquisition costs.'' Gazit 
estimates that America's gift may cost around $600 million, 
about a fifth of the aid that they are receiving. Gazit goes on 
to say that ``In some cases, the Israeli Government has to go 
with U.S. weapons even if the domestic products or the domestic 
producer of the weapons are better, cheaper, or both. Efficient 
Israeli producers of arms lose government contracts and, 
consequently, economies of scale.''
    Raz Rafaeli also maintains that continuing to send money to 
Egypt forces Israel to spend more money than perhaps they even 
need to, but for whatever reason they have to react to the 
money that we send to Egypt. He estimates that for every dollar 
we send to Egypt, that Israel has to come up with a $1.30 to a 
$1.40 more to counteract the money we send to Egypt because 
they still feel they need to have a competitive advantage over 
Egypt. And so, when we send money to Egypt, it causes more 
money to have to be spent in Israel as well.
    So, the proposal that I have put forward is, I think, 
actually a moderate proposal. It is not to end Israel's 
military aid, but it is to gradually reduce it over a period of 
10 years by 10 percent each year. It would do the same to 
Egypt's aid, and then with the PLO's aid we would go ahead and 
just end it. I know this is not going to be popular with those 
who are on the committee or those who serve in the Senate, but 
I think that there has to be some voice who does say, and 
mention, and reiterate that debt is a problem for our country. 
And there is going to come a time and there will be a day of 
reckoning when this all catches up to us, and let it not be 
said that there was not at least one voice saying that we 
should reevaluate the money that we send overseas.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this 
amendment. Ten percent a year over 10 years is zero at the end. 
So, we are sending a message to one of our most significant 
allies in the region that in 10 years you will get nothing from 
us, at a time at which there is even greater challenges to 
Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria where I am not sure 
whether the administration is ready to advocate our efforts in 
Syria, and, therefore, creates a challenge with Iranian forces 
in Syria, and a possible pincer movement against Israel going 
from both sides.
    And I worry about that, too. But, you know, maybe those who 
voted for $2 trillion worth of tax cuts that were totally 
unpaid for should have worried about China then and should have 
been worried about the consequences of that, but evidently that 
was not a concern then. So, I strongly oppose this, and I think 
it is all the wrong messaging, not to mention that the 
legislation requires and calls for a series of other actions 
that are not about money, but are about our collective 
security.
    The Chairman. Any other comments? Yes, sir.
    Senator Rubio. And Senator Menendez touched on a lot of it. 
The three things I would point out about Israel which are 
interesting. First is their economy is very successful, and if 
they were located in some other part of the world, I would say 
some of these arguments would be very valid. The problem is 
that despite the success of their economy and their ability to 
fund a lot, the threats they face are extraordinary and 
multifaceted, growing from all around the region basically. 
They are surrounded with constantly-evolving threats all aimed 
at them.
    The second is, it is an interesting statistic, but roughly 
75 percent of the security assistance that we provide to Israel 
is spent in the United States with our defense industry and the 
jobs that help create that. And I think the third thing that we 
should not forget, and Senator Menendez touched on it is, if we 
were to send a message that the U.S. commitment to Israel is in 
a glide path to being reduced, that actually in that part of 
the world is an incentive to attack Israel. It creates the 
perception the United States is beginning to walk away from 
that relationship, and it, in fact, incentivizes its enemies 
and opponents to ratchet up the pressure that they could bring 
to bear. So, that is why I strongly oppose this amendment. I 
think it would be, quite frankly, devastating to our 
relationship.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I oppose the amendment also. Would you like a 
roll call vote?
    Senator Paul. Voice vote is fine.
    The Chairman. Okay. All those in favor of the Paul 
Amendment, please signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed, nay?
    [A chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. It apparently fails.
    Are there any further amendments? I don't think there are.
    Is there a motion to approve the legislation, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve S. 2497, as amended.
    All in favor will say aye.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded 
vote.
    The Chairman. All those in favor--call the roll, Clerk. 
[Laughter.]
    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?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 20, the nays are 1.
    The Chairman. The legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    Finally, we will consider all of the nominations and the 
three FSO list, as modified, on the agenda, including Mr. Randy 
Berry to be Ambassador to Nepal, The Honorable Donald Lu to be 
Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, and the Honorable Alaina 
Teplitz to be Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Is 
there a motion to favorably--to report favorably these 
nominations and the three FSO lists, as modified?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to report favorably the nominations and the FSO lists.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The nominations 
and FSO lists are agreed to.
    That completes our committee's business. Please remember 
the committee meeting tomorrow. If people would please attend. 
It will be very brief.
    Senator Cardin. In this room?
    The Chairman. Right after the vote, in this room.
    Senator Shaheen. What time?
    The Chairman. Right after the vote tomorrow, I think. We 
will move out the NATO legislation. I ask unanimous consent 
that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming 
changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With that, the committee is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                             Committee on Foreign Relations
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. Res. 557, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate 
        regarding the strategic importance of NATO to the collective 
        security of the transatlantic region and urging its member 
        states to work together at the upcoming summit to strengthen 
        the alliance, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

    The following Managers Amendments were agreed to en bloc by roll 
call vote 
(20-1)

          Ayes: Corker, Risch (proxy), Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Flake, 
        Gardner, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman 
        (proxy), Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons (proxy), Udall, 
        Murphy (proxy), Kaine, Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Paul

     Managers Amendment--Preamble

     Managers Amendment--Resolving Clause

    The following 1st and 2nd Degree Amendments were agreed to en bloc 
by roll call vote (21-0)

          Ayes: Corker, Risch (proxy), Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Flake, 
        Gardner, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman 
        (proxy), Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons (proxy), Udall, 
        Murphy (proxy), Kaine, Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: none

     Corker 1st Degree Amendment No. 1

     Menendez 2nd Degree Amendment to Corker 1st Degree Amendment No. 
        1

    The following 1st Degree Amendments were not agreed to en bloc by 
roll call vote (1-20)

          Ayes: Paul

          Nays: Corker, Risch (proxy), Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman (proxy), 
        Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy (proxy), Kaine, 
        Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 1

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 2

                                FSO LIST

  Jason Alexander, dated June 11, 2018 (PN 2132)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:15 p.m., in 
Room S-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Flake, Gardner, Isakson, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Kaine, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. I will go ahead and call the meeting to 
order. We have seven senators here. We need 11 to vote, so we 
can move through this quickly. On the agenda today is S. Res. 
557, which was held over from the business meeting yesterday, 
and one FSO list.
    S. Res. 557 expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the 
strategic importance of NATO to the collective security of the 
transatlantic region, and urges its member-states to work 
together at the upcoming summit to strengthen the alliance. I 
want to thank Senator Wicker for introducing this resolution, 
and Senators Cardin, Shaheen, and Tillis for co-sponsoring this 
important measure. The NATO alliance advances our strategic 
interests based on shared values and allows us to address 
common security threats, including those posed by resurgent 
Russia and by terrorism.
    My recent trip to the Nordic and Baltic regions 
demonstrated the--to me the important role this defense 
alliance plays in regional security and stability, especially 
in front-line states such as Denmark and Latvia. As we approach 
the NATO summit this week and the President's summit meeting in 
Helsinki next week, the United States must stand firmly with 
our NATO allies and reaffirm our commitment to the 
transatlantic partnership. We must be clear the U.S. will not 
turn a blind eye to the Putin regime's long history of 
aggression, including its violation of the territorial 
integrity of Ukraine, its interference in elections, and its 
current activities in Syria.
    In light of these challenges, a strong NATO remains 
essential for maintaining a rules-based international order 
created with U.S. leadership that has helped democracy thrive 
around the world and has made America a safer home for our 
citizens.
    Do you have any comments, Senator Menendez?

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

    Senator Menendez. I do, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank 
you for calling this business meeting. As I stated yesterday, 
NATO has been critical for over 7 decades after World War II, 
and they were there during the Cold War, and it was there on 
September 11th when the only time that we invoked the self-
defense on behalf of the United States. It is there with some 
stability in those countries, for the last 17 years with us in 
Afghanistan. It creates a critical part of our national 
security alliance and architecture, so I believe we need the 
strongest support, and I strongly support your amendment.
    On the territorial integrity of Ukraine as well as Russia's 
annexation of Crimea, and the human rights abuses under 
Russia's illegal occupation, my second degree amendment is 
because violence has been increasing in Eastern Ukraine. Across 
the region, the Kremlin is saying to me and other Department 
officials on what its views are. We should be increasing 
sanctions on Russia that we passed last year, and I suggest the 
amendment and call for current sanctions to strengthened--to be 
strengthened and remain in place until the Ukrainian situation 
is resolved.
    The Chairman. We now have a quorum. Does anybody have any 
further comments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. We will now move to S. Res. 557, but I would 
like to first call up a manger's amendment which makes a number 
of technical and grammatical edits to the preamble and 
resolving clause of the resolution. Then we will proceed to the 
Corker 1st Degree Amendment No. 1 and the Menendez 2nd Degree 
Amendment No. 2. Is there a motion to approve the two manager's 
amendments en bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Shaheen. So moved.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    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?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye, and let it be recorded Senator Cardin 
voted aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 20 ayes, 1 nay.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. Now we will move to the 
Corker 1st Degree Amendment No. 1. My amendment adds a policy 
resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine while 
condemning the illegal invasion and attempted annexation of 
Crimea, which violated Russia's commitments under the Helsinki 
Final Act and Budapest Memorandum. The language reflects 
current U.S. policy that I think is important to have going 
into both the NATO and Helsinki summits.
    Is there a motion to consider the Corker first degree and 
the Menendez second degree amendments en bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Menendez. Can we have a recorded vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    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?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    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. The yeas are 21, the nays are zero.
    The Chairman. The amendment carries. Are there any other 
amendments?
    Senator Paul. Yes. I do not object to the resolution before 
us per se. Yesterday, though, we also voted to give our 
ironclad commitment to everyone in NATO. This resolution also 
says, hey, you want to join NATO, join NATO. So, basically, you 
are applying Article 5 protection to anyone in the world who 
wants to join NATO. So, I really object to the idea we would 
admit anyone to NATO, which has been our policy for some time.
    Whether or not to expand NATO I think is a question that 
deserves to be debated. Any such debate should ask the question 
does NATO expansion help or hurt U.S. national security. Just 
adding countries such as Albania and Montenegro, U.S. security 
will ensnare us in possible regional disputes. Are we going to 
risk war with Russia by expanding NATO to include countries 
that are already mired in military conflict with Russia?
    To understand what NATO expansion does to our relationship 
with Russia, one must at least be aware of Russia's 
perspective. An awareness of Russia's perspective does not mean 
that we countenance their point of view, but we are aware that 
our actions lead to reactions, that we are aware that NATO 
expansion is--does not occur in a vacuum. Russia's perspective 
is greatly influenced by Secretary of State James Baker's 
promise to Gorbachev. As Germany was unified, Secretary Baker 
said NATO will not expand one inch eastward after Germany is 
unified.
    We once had a robust and thoughtful debate in our country 
over diplomacy and our desire to avoid war, but lately I think 
both parties tend to shake their fists and then we're 
undeclared laboratories. Take this sanction, take this 
expansion of NATO, take this travel restriction under the 
misguided notion that unilateral actions will lead to 
capitulation. Yet instead of capitulation, we often have seen 
rising tensions increase nationalism and a ratcheting up of 
Cold War-like fever.
    In one case, in one respect, I think we can even argue 
Putin is a reaction to the NATO expansion. The nationalism of 
Russia is a part of the reaction to NATO's expansion. There was 
a time when main voices counseled against Russia's expansion. 
Perhaps the most famous diplomat over the last century, George 
Kennan, wrote in 1998, and when Yeltsin was still in power and 
we were not so worried about a nationalistic U.S., we thought 
we were going to have elections coming in our direction. Russia 
was heading in our direction.
    He wrote in '98 before the rise of Putin, before the rise 
of Russian nationalism, before the Russian aggression, he said, 
``Expanding NATO would be a fateful error'' that would 
``inflame the nationalist, anti-Western, and militaristic 
tendencies in Russian opinion,'' and ``restore the atmosphere 
of the Cold War to East-West relations.'' Kennan went on to 
say, ``I think'' NATO expansion ``is the beginning of a new 
cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite 
adversely.'' And he was saying all of this before the Russians 
began acting adversely and will affect their policies.
    I think it is a tragic mistake. We have signed up to 
protect a whole series of countries even though we have not--
the resources were not intentioned to in any serious way. 
Charles Kupchan at Georgetown writes similarly. He says, ``NATO 
has ignored its vociferous objections and expanded eastward in 
successive waves since the 1990s, bringing the world's most 
formidable military alliance up to Russia's borders. The 
Kremlin may well have returned to its bullying ways whether or 
not NATO's frontier moved Russia's way. But Moscow perceives a 
threat from NATO's advance and resents its effort to peel away 
Russia's traditional sphere of influence.'' Kupchan goes on to 
say, ``Limiting NATO's reach is about not just exercising 
strategic prudence toward Russia, but also maintaining the 
integrity of the alliance's solemn commitment to collective 
defense.''
    We have a commitment. We have an Article 5 commitment. Do 
we dilute that by adding everybody in the world to NATO so 
close to Russia that we have no intention of actually going to 
war with them? Kupchan goes on to say ``NATO should not be in 
the business of extending territorial guarantees to countries 
that are deep into Russia's periphery and therefore very 
difficult to defend.''
    In an open letter opposing NATO expansion, former Secretary 
of the Navy, Paul Nitze, former ambassador to the USSR, Jack 
Matlock, and many others wrote that ``NATO expansion risks 
exacerbating instability, causing Russia to believe the U.S. 
and West are attempting to isolate, encircle, and subordinate 
them. It is very imposing.'' MIT says, ``Once committed to 
defend allies everywhere, a state becomes obsessed with its 
political and military prestige, and vulnerable to the claim 
that small wars must be fought in the hope of deterring large 
ones. This is especially true when the actual strategic value 
of these allies is modest.''
    Pat Buchanan puts it succinctly. ``The Senate is handing 
out permanent security guarantees Eastern Europe, where no 
president has ever seen a vital interest and no U.S. army--I 
mean, not even General Eisenhower's--ever fought before.'' In 
fact, Eisenhower himself warned of becoming entangled in 
European affairs. As he assumed command of the NATO force in 
Europe in 1951, Eisenhower uttered the prophetic words of 
caution: ``If in 10 years all American troops stationed in 
Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to 
the U.S., this whole project will have failed.''
    Retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis also warns of 
extending NATO to former parts of the Soviet Union. He says, 
``Extending NATO membership to Georgia, or Ukraine as others 
advocate, in no way strengthens U.S. security, but rather 
unequivocally increases America's strategic risk.'' Davis' 
point is worth reiterating. Expanding NATO to Russia's border 
does not make us more secure. Indeed, pushing NATO to Russia's 
border makes Russia more likely. Davis concludes: ``Washington 
should seek to maintain a world-class deterrent while ensuring 
U.S. participation in alliances serve American interests--not 
place those interests at higher risk.''
    The Chairman. How many more pages do you have?
    Senator Paul. One and a half more, and my statement is not 
too much to ask for a debate over expanding NATO. My amendment 
today simply strikes the resolution's open-ended invitation to 
NATO expansion. Those who lament a new Cold War with Russia 
should think twice before expanding NATO to Russia's borders as 
they have existed for 70 years. Instead of endlessly meddling 
here, we should look for ways to engage--rather than engage in 
conflict.
    As we look at the open-door policy which have brought 
countries in, such as Montenegro whose military is smaller than 
the Washington, D.C. police force, I cannot help but think of 
the spark which started the slaughter of World War I where 
Russia confronted Austria and Hungary over Serbia. With this 
historical context in mind is why I offer my amendments to this 
legislation. The first strikes paragraph 5 from the resolving 
clause. This clause encourages all NATO member-states to 
clearly commit to further enlarging the alliance, including 
extending invitations to any aspirant country which has met the 
condition required to join NATO.
    The second strikes the 11th whereas clause from the 
preamble, ``And be willing to consider the vote together,'' but 
if you want to vote together, you can. The second strikes the 
11th whereas clause from the preamble which states ``NATO's 
enlargement has delivered advanced security and stability to 
all NATO member-states, including Montenegro. The newest NATO 
member has demonstrated the importance of NATO's open-door 
policy for all aspiring countries.'' Luxembourg and Montenegro 
have less than 2,000 active military personnel; Latvia and 
Estonia--Slovenia and Estonia less than 10,000. It can be 
fairly argued these countries cannot even defend themselves, 
let alone contribute to the defense of the United States in a 
meaningful way. Instead, they present trip wires for the United 
States to come to their aid.
    So, I ask for consideration of the amendments together, and 
basically what I'm asking for is that we not have an open-ended 
invitation to join NATO. That is also backed up by what every 
one of you say in view of you voted on yesterday an ironclad 
result to defend everybody in Article 5 in defense of NATO 
while also offering admission to everyone that basically would 
address this.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and thank you for letting us 
consider these en bloc. Our intention for the resolution is to 
support--four of us were in Finland last week, and while they 
do not aspire currently to be a part of NATO, at some point 
they might. And, in fact, that could balance something that 
actually increases--I think we ought to help these countries 
meet the requirements. Fighting for having democracies in all 
of those countries, all of those things do benefit to the 
security of U.S. citizens.
    I oppose both of these amendments. I appreciate the senator 
bringing them forth, and I would ask for a vote. I will say 
this resolution also states that we have security, and also we 
encourage them to seek ascension when they are qualified. And 
all of us who would entertain a vote when a new country is 
aspiring to be a part of NATO, we have the right to vote 
against that should that occur. I think the amendments actually 
send a negative signal to our NATO allies, and I oppose them.
    Senator Menendez. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I deeply 
oppose the amendments. We are not inviting anyone to enter 
NATO. We are inviting those we think can meet the standards of 
what it is to participate in NATO who will have to perform. And 
in terms of what is expected of NATO membership in contributing 
to our collective security, I say this is not about 
antagonizing Russia. They took over Crimea and continue to 
invade illegally a sovereign country on the issue of Ukraine, 
and violated the international order and continue to 
destabilize the country and others.
    And lastly, on the--on this question, this was a goal set 
by NATO collectively for 2024, so when anyone suggests NATO 
countries are in arrears, they are not arrears. They are 
working towards that 2 percent commitment, which is supposed to 
take place by 2024. In fact, eight countries will, in fact, 
have their 2 percent this year, 7 years early. So, for all 
those reasons, I oppose the amendments.
    Senator Paul. One brief response. The Section 5, in fact, 
does say that it encourages all NATO member-states to clearly 
commit to further enlargement of the alliance, including 
extending invitations to any aspirant country which has met the 
conditions to join NATO. So, really you do dilute what you 
have. If you have 29 countries or 58 countries, now you have a 
collective response to defend 59 countries, so I think you are 
giving an open-ended welcoming sign--blinking welcoming sign to 
come to NATO.
    You also said yesterday for an ironclad commitment. All I 
would ask is that you prepare your constituents, your sons and 
daughters, to go to war for any of these 29 countries that you 
have now, plus any others that may aspire to join NATO.
    The Chairman. Is a voice vote acceptable?
    Senator Paul. I would rather do it by a roll call.
    The Chairman. The vote will be on the two Paul amendments 
en bloc. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    The Chairman. Aye 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?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. 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 Menendez. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 1, the nays are 20.
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, I intend to file additional 
views.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

            Additional Views Submitted by Senator Rand Paul

    Whether or not to expand NATO is a question that deserves to be 
debated. Any such debate should ask the question: Does NATO expansion 
help or hurt US national security?
    Does adding countries such as Albania and Montenegro add to U.S. 
security or simply ensnare us in possible regional disputes?
    Are we willing to risk war with Russia by expanding NATO to include 
countries that already are mired in military conflict with Russia?
    To understand what NATO expansion does to our relations with 
Russia, one must at least be aware of Russia's perspective. An 
awareness of Russia's perspective does not mean that we countenance 
their point of view but that we are aware that our actions lead to 
reactions, that we are aware that NATO expansion does not occur in a 
vacuum.
    Russia's perspective is greatly influenced by Sec of State James 
Baker's promise to Gorbachev as Germany reunified in that ``NATO will 
not expand ``not one inch eastward.''
    We once had robust and thoughtful debate in our country over 
diplomacy and our desire to avoid war. Of late, both parties tend to 
shake their fists in the air and declare to our adversaries: ``Take 
this sanction. Take this expansion of NATO. Take this travel 
restriction,'' under the misguided notion that our unilateral actions 
will lead to capitulation.
    And yet, instead of capitulation, we've often seen rising tensions, 
increased nationalism, and a ratcheting up a Cold War-like fever.
    There was a time when many voices cautioned against reckless NATO 
expansion.
    Perhaps the most famous diplomat of the last century George Kennan, 
U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union and to Yugoslavia wrote:

        Expanding NATO would be a ``fateful error'' that would 
        ``inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic 
        tendencies in Russian opinion'' and ``restore the atmosphere of 
        the cold war to East-West relations.'' 
    Kennan went on to say:

        I think [NATO expansion] is the beginning of a new cold war.
          I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and 
        it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake 
        ... We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, 
        even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to 
        do so in any serious way.

    Charles Kupchan, professor at Georgetown similarly writes:

        NATO has ignored Russia's vociferous objections and expanded 
        eastward in successive waves since the 1990s, bringing the 
        world's most formidable military alliance up to Russia's 
        borders. The Kremlin may well have returned to its bullying 
        ways whether or not NATO's frontier moved Russia's way. But 
        Moscow perceives a threat from NATO's advance and resents its 
        effort to peel away Russia's traditional sphere of influence, 
        helping fuel the confrontational turn in the Kremlin's foreign 
        policy and renewed rivalry with the West.

    Kupchan goes on to say:

        Limiting NATO's reach is about not just exercising strategic 
        prudence toward Russia but also maintaining the integrity of 
        the alliance's solemn commitment to collective defense. NATO 
        should not be in the business of extending territorial 
        guarantees to countries that are deep into Russia's periphery 
        and therefore very difficult to defend.

    In an open letter opposing NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, former 
Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze, former Ambassador to USSR Jack 
Matlock, and others wrote that NATO expansion risked exacerbating 
instability and cause Russia to believe that:

        [T]he United States and the West are attempting to isolate, 
        encircle, and subordinate them.

    Barry Posen from MIT agrees. He explains:

        Once committed to defend allies everywhere, a state becomes 
        obsessed with its political and military prestige, and 
        vulnerable to the claim that ``small'' wars must be fought in 
        the hope of deterring large ones. This is especially true when 
        the actual strategic value of these allies is modest.

    Pat Buchanan puts it succinctly:

        The Senate is . . . handing out permanent security guarantees 
        to Eastern Europe, where no president has ever seen a vital 
        interest and no U.S. Army--not even Gen. Eisenhower's--ever 
        fought before

    In fact, Eisenhower, himself, warned of becoming entangled in 
European affairs. As he assumed command of NATO forces in Europe in 
1951, General of the Armies Dwight D. Eisenhower uttered prophetic 
words of caution: ``If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in 
Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the 
United States, then this whole project will have failed.''

    Retired Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis warns of extending NATO to former 
parts of the Soviet Union:

        Extending NATO membership to Georgia--or Ukraine, as others 
        advocate--in no way strengthens U.S. security, but rather 
        unequivocally increases America's strategic risk.

    Davis' point here is worth reiterating:

        Expanding NATO to Russia's border does not make the U.S. more 
        secure. Indeed, pushing NATO to Russia's border makes war with 
        Russia more likely.

    Davis concludes:

        Washington should seek to maintain a world-class deterrent 
        while ensuring U.S. participation in alliances serve American 
        interests--not place those interests at higher risk.

    My amendments today simply strike the resolutions open ended 
invitation to NATO expansion.
    Those who lament a renewed cold war with Russia should think twice 
before advocating to expand NATO to Russia's border.
    Saner minds prevailed for 70 years of Cold War to avoid conflict 
with Russia. Instead of endlessly rattling sabers, the Senate should be 
looking for ways to seek engagement rather than conflict.

    Thomas Jefferson was one of those saner voices. Jefferson wrote:

        I am for free commerce with all nations . . . I am not for 
        linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, 
        entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance . . 
        .

    It is important NOT to forget that Europe has twice in the past 100 
years turned into a field of slaughter as Europe has fought to preserve 
``balance.''
    George Washington and really all of our founding fathers warned 
that ``entangling alliances'' would ensnare America in the wars of 
Europe.
    As I look at the ``open door'' NATO policy which has brought in 
countries such as Montenegro, who's military is smaller than the 
Washington DC Police force, I can't help but think of the spark which 
started the slaughter of WWI when Russia confronted Austro-Hungary over 
Serbia.
    With this historical context in mind, this is why I offer my two 
amendments to this legislation.
    The first: strikes paragraph 5 from the resolving clause. This 
clause ``encourages all NATO member states to clearly commit to further 
enlargement of the alliance, including extending invitations to any 
aspirant country which has met the conditions required to join NATO.''
    The second strikes the 11th ``whereas clause'' from the preamble, 
which states ``NATO's enlargement has delivered enhanced security and 
stability to all NATO member states, including Montenegro (the newest 
NATO member), and has demonstrated the importance of NATO's Open Door 
Policy for all aspiring countries and for invitations to join NATO to 
be issued as soon as an aspirant country has met the conditions for 
membership.''
    Luxembourg and Montenegro have less than two thousand active 
military personnel. Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Albania have less 
than ten thousand.
    It can be fairly argued that these countries cannot even defend 
themselves, let alone contribute to the defense of the United States in 
a meaningful way. Instead, they present tripwires where the United 
States will be forced to come to their aid under Article 5.

    The Chairman. All right. The question is on the motion to 
approve S. 557, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The resolution 
is agreed to.
    The final movement is to consider the FSO list on the 
agenda.
    All in favor of approving the FSO list, please signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the FSO list 
is agreed to.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be allowed to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And without objection, the committee will stand adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]


                                ------                                
                  
                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1023, Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2017, 
        with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

  S. 1580, Protecting Girls' Access to Education in Vulnerable Settings 
        Act, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment

  S. 3248, Turkey International Financial Institutions Act--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  S. Res. 501, 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 Government of the United 
        States to promote democracy and good governance, with 
        amendments, agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 1

  S. Res. 541, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that any 
        United States-Saudi Arabia civilian nuclear cooperation 
        agreement must prohibit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 
        enriching uranium or separating plutonium on its own territory, 
        in keeping with the strongest possible nonproliferation ``gold 
        standard,'' with amendments, agreed to en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Substitute Amendment--Resolving Clause

  S. Res. 571, A resolution condemning the ongoing illegal occupation 
        of Crimea by the Russian Federation, with amendments, agreed to 
        en bloc by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--Preamble

     Substitute Amendment--Resolving Clause

                              NOMINATIONS

    The Following Nominations and FSO lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote

  Mr. Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of 
        Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu (Menendez, Cardin, 
        Kaine, Markey, and Merkley recorded as ``no'')

  Dr. Denise Natali, of New Jersey. to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations)

  Ms. Kimberly Breier, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Western Hemisphere Affairs)

                               FSO LISTS

  Michael Calvert, et al., dated March 12, 2018 (PN 1743)

  Tanya S. Urquieta, dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1800-2)

  Maureen A. Shauket, dated April 9, 2018 (PN 1802-2)

  Philip S. Goldberg, et al., dated July 18, 2018 (PN 2319)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
Room S-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Flake, Young, 
Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Kaine, and 
Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee meeting will 
come to order. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, we have on our agenda today six pieces of 
legislation, three nominees, and four Foreign Service officer 
lists.
    First on the agenda is S. 1023, the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Reauthorization Act. Over recent years, the 
Tropical Forest Conservation Act has provided funds through 
debt-for-nature swaps for qualifying countries with tropical 
forests to conserve areas vital to our environment. Under the 
substitute amendment proposed by Senator Portman, countries 
with a tropical forest or a coral reef may be eligible for this 
program if they meet underlying governance criteria. I want to 
recognize Senator Portman for sponsoring this bill and for 
working with us on a substitute amendment. Thank you so much.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. We will also consider S. 1580, the Protecting 
Girls' Access to Education in Vulnerable Settings Act, which I 
will be supporting as it further enhances education policies 
that we put into law last year with the READ Act. This bill 
focuses on nearly 4 million children displaced by conflict that 
lack access to primary education, and seeks to overcome 
barriers to providing such education, particularly for girls. I 
want to thank Senator Rubio, Senators Menendez, Cardin, Coons, 
Markey, and Merkley for their support of this legislation.
    S. 3248, the Turkey International Financial Institutions 
Act, calls on U.S. representatives at two major international 
financial institutions--the European Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development and the International Finance Corporation--to 
vote against loans to the Turkish Government until it releases 
the U.S. citizens that it has detained arbitrarily. This 
includes Pastor Andrew Brunson who Senator Shaheen recently 
visited.
    I want to emphasize that we never wanted this bill to be 
necessary. We really have pushed through diplomatic channels 
for things to change. But many of my colleagues and I warned 
the Turkish Government that there would be consequences if it 
did not cease its unjust detention and harassment of U.S. 
citizens and locally-employed embassy staff. Although Pastor 
Bronson's transfer from prison to house arrest is a good first 
step after 21 months, this development is long past due. We 
will continue to pressure the Turkish Government until we see 
an end to the harassment and arbitrary detention of all U.S. 
citizens, including Pastor Brunson, as well as U.S. Embassy 
staff. I want to thank our co-sponsors, Ranking Member 
Menendez, Senators Shaheen, Lankford, Tillis, and Nelson, for 
working with us on this bill, and I urge all members of the 
committee to support its passage.
    S. Res. 501 recognizes the importance of having a free and 
open press in a democracy. It commemorates World Press Freedom 
Day, and I am happy to support it. I want to thank Senators 
Casey, Menendez, and Rubio for their work on this important 
resolution. I also want to recognize Senator Cardin for filing 
a first degree amendment, which pays tribute to the victims of 
the recent attack on the Capital Gazette in Annapolis.
    S. Res. 541 expresses the sense of the Senate that any 
United States-Saudi Arabian civilian nuclear cooperation 
agreement should prohibit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 
enriching uranium or separating plutonium on its own territory 
in keeping with the strongest possible nonproliferation gold 
standard. I will be supporting this resolution and the 
substitute amendments to it, which highlight the precedent set 
for gold standard agreements in the Middle East with the 2009 
UAE 123 Agreement, and call on any 123 agreement with Saudi 
Arabia to bring into force the Additional Protocol with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure appropriate access 
for the IAEA to conduct monitoring and verification of a Saudi 
civil nuclear program. I want to recognize Senator Merkley, 
Senator Paul, and Senator Markey for their support of this 
important legislation.
    S. Res. 571 condemns the ongoing illegal occupation of 
Crimea by the Russian Federation. As I stated in the last 
business meeting, I think it is important that we continue to 
reaffirm support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity 
of Ukraine while condemning Russia's illegal invasion of 
Crimea, which violated Russia's commitments under the Helsinki 
Final Act and the Budapest Memorandum. I want to thank Senators 
Menendez, Isakson, Portman, Rubio, Cardin, Coons, and Markey 
for supporting this resolution.
    I do want to acknowledge that yesterday the State 
Department sent out a very strong resolution, which we 
appreciate. Sometimes hearings have effect. We thank them for 
sending that out yesterday.
    Finally, I want to recognize--finally I want to recognize 
Margaret Taylor, who joined this committee's staff first as a 
State Department fellow in 2013 and then as chief counsel in 
2015. I understand that today will be her last business meeting 
with us. I want to thank her for all of her work on behalf of 
the committee. Thank you, Margaret, and I wish you the best in 
your future endeavors. I know Senator Menendez--[Applause.]

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

    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, this will be a nicer 
session than yesterday. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, let me start off 
where you left off, and I appreciate the opportunity and a 
moment of personal privilege. As you said, this will be 
Margaret's last business meeting as our deputy staff director 
and the chief counsel on the Democratic side.
    Margaret came over to us initially as a State Department 
fellow. I was pleased when I was chairman to hire her as she 
quickly became indispensable. She has an impressive intellect, 
a magisterial knowledge of foreign policy, the State 
Department, and international law. But what has made her such a 
valuable staff member is her ability to go out and use that 
institutional knowledge to help us write new laws and then work 
tirelessly to make them a reality. It is a rare combination of 
skills.
    For 6 years, she has been a tremendous advocate for this 
side of the aisle, but I think, more importantly, she has been 
able to reach across the aisle and work together to pass 
legislation and make a difference in the world. She has made a 
difference. She has used her position to advocate for the best 
of American foreign policy, to push for good government and 
human rights, and to deter America's adversaries.
    So, Mr. Chairman, you have accommodated us to present her a 
resolution on behalf of the committee, and I want to take--I am 
not going to read it all, Margaret. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. Because it is so flowing and 
glowing, but you deserve every word that is written. 
Congratulations. [Applause.]
    Senator Cardin. Can I ask the ranking member to yield 
before he finishes the rest? I would like, if I might, just to 
add my own personal thanks to Margaret. I think both of you 
have said it best: she represents the best professional talent 
we have on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She has done 
her work in a way of public service. She recognizes the 
importance of the work of this committee, has done it in a very 
nonpartisan, professional manner.
    I got to know her well when I became ranking member, but 
then there was a period where Joe Schwartz left as our chief on 
the Democratic side, and Margaret stepped in and acted--in the 
acting capacity, and really kept the work of our committee 
moving forward. I got to understand the complexities when you 
are dealing with sanctions legislation, or dealing with the 
interagency issues, or dealing with the executive-legislative 
divisions. It is not easy, and Margaret gave us that capacity 
to be able to develop legislation that not only expressed our 
policy desires, but it actually worked. And her professionalism 
was an incredible service to our country, and I just really 
want to add my thanks. [Applause.]
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, let me just refer to the 
business meeting. Margaret, I am glad that you heard all of 
this when you are leaving. Otherwise, you would have looked for 
a raise. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. There is only a limited budget, but you 
would have deserved it anyhow.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the business meeting 
and for agreeing to take up our bipartisan resolution against 
the illegal Russian occupation of Crimea. I, too, want to thank 
Senators Portman, Coons, Rubio, Markey, and Cardin for joining 
us as co-sponsors. We all know well the many ways in which the 
Russian Government continues to wage all sorts of aggression 
against the United States and our allies, and no situation 
demonstrates this better than in Ukraine. Even as a hot 
conflict continues in the east of the country, the situation in 
Crimea under illegal Russian occupation, which the Kremlin is 
working to consolidate day by day, grows more grim.
    Our resolution calls on the administration to never 
recognize Russia's illegal Crimea--annexation of Crimea, so I 
am pleased that Secretary Pompeo in his testimony yesterday 
affirmed that the United States will never do so. Seventy-eight 
years ago this past Monday, the United States issued the Wales 
Declaration doing just that with respect to the Baltic States 
that were then illegally occupied by the Soviet Union. That 
stalwart commitment laid the foundation for the eventual 
freedom of the Baltic States and the strong partnership we 
enjoy with them today.
    So, I just want to make a note, Mr. Chairman, sometimes, 
you know, what we do here really matters. I think it is 
interesting that Secretary Pompeo's statement on Crimea 
occurred just minutes before the hearing we held yesterday. I 
would submit to you that sometimes when we take up paces of 
legislation like this one and we insist on administration 
witnesses to appear before us, it is amazing what positive 
outcomes can come. So, I appreciate you bringing the resolution 
to this business meeting.
    Turning to the Turkey International Financial Institutions 
Act, I want to salute you, Mr. Chairman, for your incredible 
commitment to highlighting the absolutely absurd and 
intolerable imprisonment of U.S. pastor, Andrew Brunson. I join 
you in calling for his immediate and unconditional release. And 
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Shaheen, for her 
leadership in pushing forward legislation that makes clear the 
United States cannot continue to do business as usual with the 
Turkish Government so long as it adheres to policies and 
actions that are totally inconsistent with what we should 
expect from a NATO ally. And this includes moving forward with 
the purchase of the S-400 from Russia, detaining locally-
employed staff of the United States embassy, and generally 
creating an environment that tramples on the basic human rights 
and fundamental freedoms of the Turkish people.
    So, there are a number of other legislative items on the 
agenda. I intend to support of all them. I will not speak to 
all of them. And finally, I intend to support the nomination of 
Dr. Denise Natali, who I believe has the expertise, knowledge, 
and commitment to lead the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations. I do not intend to support, although I allowed it 
to go forward, the nomination of Joseph Cella to Fiji. At Mr. 
Cella's hearing, I was unimpressed with many of the answers he 
provided to my questions, and I continue to be concerned about 
his demonstrated poor judgment, including recklessly using 
documents illegally obtained by WikiLeaks to make attacks on 
political opponents. So, I remain uncertain that he will serve 
with the trust and confidence that is required for Senate 
confirmation. Therefore, I will oppose his nomination today. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. So we can end on a good note, why 
do not do the nominations first, if that is all right with you.
    Senator Menendez. Sure.
    The Chairman. Okay. So, we will consider the nominations on 
the agenda. I do want to do some of them by voice vote or 
recorded vote.
    Senator Menendez. I am happy to unless a member wants 
otherwise.
    The Chairman. Okay. Why do we not do them by voice vote, 
and anybody who wants to be recorded as a no can do so. I would 
like to do it en bloc if we could: Mr. Joseph Cella to be 
ambassador to Fiji and other Pacific Island nations, Dr. Denise 
Natali to be assistant secretary of state for conflict and 
stabilization operations, and Ms. Kimberly Breier to be 
assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Senator Menendez. I would like to be listed as a no on Mr. 
Cella. And let me say I am also supporting--I did not realize 
we had Breier on the nomination, but she is imminently 
qualified.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I also want to be recorded no 
on Cella.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Kaine. Can I ask to be shown no on Cella.
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Kaine. No on Cella.
    The Chairman. Okay. All right. So, the ayes have it, and we 
have five recorded nays, all Democrats present, okay, if we 
would just note that, and thank you all for letting us move on 
with that. So, the ayes have it. They will be referred to the 
floor.
    And I will move to the legislation now. I want to thank all 
members for being here. We will move to S. 1023, the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act. Is there anyone that 
would like to speak further on this bill?
    Senator Portman. If I could speak briefly, first, to thank 
my co-sponsor, Senator Udall, and also the members of the 
committee. Senator Markey, I know you just got on the bill. 
Senator Whitehouse has been a member of the--of the team 
looking at this issue. Senator Burr is another original co-
sponsor.
    This is legislation that was first introduced back in 1998. 
I was the author of it in the House. I think it has worked 
incredibly well. It is debt-for-nature swap. It is about taking 
debt that is owed to the U.S. by a foreign country, if the 
country meets certain political criteria, and allowing it to be 
relieved or even reduced. And I say it has worked because there 
has been about 20 agreements around the world. Fourteen 
countries have done it. The estimate is that 67 million acres 
of tropical forests have been protected, and this was all done 
with about $230 million in appropriated funds; leveraged with 
private sector funding, over $335 million. So, it has been used 
to leverage the funding of private entities, NGOs, and so on.
    Some say that tropical forests and the burning of them is 
the third or fourth source--highest source of CO2 
emissions. It is a significant source of it, and that--
protection of that amount of forest means that 56 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide has been sequestered. That is 
equivalent, Mr. Chairman, of taking about 12 million cars off 
the road.
    And for those on the Republican side who are concerned 
about some of the regulatory effects of things, like some of 
the effects it would have on Ohio jobs with power plants and so 
on and even the CAFE standards, this does it without losing a 
single job. In fact, it helps these countries because getting 
that debt of their balance sheets can help them economically, 
and they are developing countries. So, I would ask today that 
the committee would reauthorize this for another 4 years.
    We have an opportunity here to do something that is helpful 
also with coral reefs by expanding into that. We are told that 
60 percent of the world's reefs are now under threat, and so 
that can be part of this debt-for-nature swaps. And, again, I 
thank the chairman for working with us on it and improving the 
legislation.
    This is a $20 million per year authorization for 4 years. 
Last time we did this it was $325 million over 3 years, so it 
is a smaller amount based on the fact that we have done a 
pretty good job of finding those developing countries who want 
to take advantage of it. We know there are some others out 
there, and we think that $20 million will be adequate to 
continue to have the successes we have had in this program.
    The Chairman. Very good. Is there a motion to approve S. 
1023, as amended by the substitute amendment?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    Senator Menendez. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1023, as 
amended by the substitute amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation, 
as amended, is agreed to.
    Now, we will move to S. 1580, the Protecting Girls' Access 
to Education in Vulnerable Settings Act. I want to thank 
Senator Rubio again for working with us on a substitute 
amendment, which makes numbers of technical edits and 
conforming changes to better align the bill with existing law. 
Are there any further comments on this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve S. 1680?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 1580, as 
amended by the substitute amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation, as amended, is agreed to.
    Next, we will consider S. 3248, the Turkey International 
Financial Institutions Act. Are there any additional comments 
on this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve S. 3248?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. It is so moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 3248.
    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 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next, without objection, we will consider en bloc S. Res. 
501, S. Res 541, S. Res. 571, as amended by the noticed 
amendments to the resolutions, which include the Cardin 
amendment to S. Res. 501. Would any--would any members like to 
give any additional comments on these resolutions before we 
approve them?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Merkley. I want to thank Senator Paul and Senator 
Markey for co-sponsoring the gold standard resolution for Saudi 
Arabia. This blocks both the plutonium and the uranium route to 
civilian nuclear energy being converted into a potential bomb. 
This is a standard that we are trying to establish everywhere 
in the world, and it is so important in the context of the 
Middle East and the dynamic in Saudi Arabia and Iran. So, thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, for your support.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Cardin. In regards to the freedom of the press 
resolution, first, I want to thank you for bringing that 
forward. The amendment that I offered recognizes that we have 
problems here in the United States. What happened at Capital 
Gazette just recently was a tragic attack. And I appreciate the 
fact that we are adding this amendment, making it clear to the 
international community that all countries need to be vigilant 
in the protection of the freedom of the press.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you both for your efforts 
and your comments. So, is there a motion to approve en bloc 
these three resolutions?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the resolutions, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
resolutions, as amended, are agreed to.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With that--with that, without objection, the committee 
stands adjourned. Thank you all yesterday--for yesterday and 
today.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.


    [Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

               Summary of Actions Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

    The following Nominations and FSO lists were agreed to en bloc by 
voice vote

  The Honorable Michael A. Hammer, of Maryland, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

  Mr. John Cotton Richmond, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office 
        to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, with the rank of Ambassador 
        at Large

  The Honorable Stephanie S. Sullivan, of Maryland, a Career Member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Ghana

  Mr. Donald R. Tapia, of Arizona, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Jamaica

  The Honorable David Hale, of New Jersey, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an 
        Under Secretary of State (Political Affairs)

  Mr. Dereck J. Hogan, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Moldova

  Mr. Philip S. Kosnett, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Kosovo

  Ms. Judy Rising Reinke, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Montenegro

                                FSO LIST

  Ami J. Abou-Bakr, et al., dated July 31, 2018 (PN 2371)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 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, 
Isakson, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Murphy, 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. I know there is a 
hearing after this that Senator Rubio will chair.
    Senator Rubio. What?
    No, I am kidding.
    (Laughter.)
    The Chairman. I know, it scares us too, but----
    (Laughter.)
    The Chairman  [continuing]. So I am going to go ahead and 
see if Senator Menendez has any comments, and then I will go 
through the list of people that we may approve.

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward 
to the hearing that Senator Rubio and Senator Cardin are going 
to host.
    There are a number of nominees on the agenda today, and I 
support all of them. But before I say anything further on the 
nominations, I would like to briefly raise the administration's 
potential proposed rescissions, which I understand would target 
$2 to $4 billion of unappropriated funds largely for the State 
Department and USAID.
    I think most of our members know by now that you and I have 
both weighed in with the Secretary, and I believe it is 
critically important we remain united, that the whole Congress 
be united on this, because this is not just a foreign 
assistance issue. By seeking to rescind funds this close to the 
end of the fiscal year, the administration would be flouting 
the law and undermining Congress' constitutional power of the 
purse.
    The topline appropriation numbers were a compromise between 
Leaders Schumer and McConnell, and President Trump signed the 
appropriations bill into law. By trying to undo appropriations 
without congressional input, the administration is using a 
nuclear option to attack Congress' status as a co-equal branch 
of government.
    I certainly hope cooler heads prevail and that he will pull 
back from a reckless course of action. If not, speaking for 
myself, I am prepared to respond with all the options at my 
disposal.
    In particular, let me just turn to the nominations now. I 
want to mention how pleased I am that the veteran career State 
Department nominees who are before us today all have served our 
country dutifully and admirably in some of the most difficult 
posts across the globe.
    In particular, I want to highlight the nomination of 
Ambassador David Hale to be Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs. It is an immensely challenging post, but few diplomats 
have served our nation as ably and honorably as Ambassador 
Hale, and I have confidence that Ambassador Hale will rise to 
the challenge, and I do expect that he will be responsive to 
this committee in his new post.
    I also want to call attention to the Office of the 
Ambassador at Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, to which 
Mr. John Richmond has been nominated. This is an important job, 
one that both the Chairman and I and many members of this 
committee are concerned about the work there.
    There are an estimated 40 million victims of human 
trafficking around the world. We have also seen in the past 
years how a lack of leadership at the TIP Office can lead to an 
erosion of the TIP Report's power to persuade countries to join 
us in the fight against trafficking. But given his background 
as a former Special Litigation Counsel for the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice and a founding member of 
the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, I am confident Mr. 
Richmond has the expertise, knowledge, and commitment necessary 
to lead the TIP Office. We wish him well. We will be watching 
his performance closely.
    And I support all the rest of the nominees, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    I know that people are here and that they have other 
business, and I want to thank all of you, a very responsible 
group of people who serve on this committee, and I thank you 
for that.
    I am going to read out the list of people that are on the 
agenda. What I would hope might happen is us pass them out by 
voice. But if people want to show that they do not support the 
nominee, they can do so after the fact, if that is okay. We 
will do, of course, whatever the committee wishes.
    These are the nominees: the Honorable Michael Hammer to be 
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo; Mr. John Cotton 
Richmond to be Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat 
Trafficking; the Honorable Stephanie Sullivan to be Ambassador 
to Ghana; Mr. Donald Tapia to be Ambassador to Jamaica; the 
Honorable David Hale to be Under Secretary of State for 
Political Affairs; Mr. Dereck Hogan to be Ambassador to 
Moldova; Mr. Philip Kosnett to be Ambassador to Kosovo; Ms. 
Judy Rising Reinke to be Ambassador to Montenegro.
    Is there a motion to report favorably these nominations and 
the FSO list en bloc, by voice vote?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to report favorably the FSO 
list and the nominations.
    All in favor, say aye?
    (Chorus of ayes.)
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    (No response.)
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The nominations 
and the FSO list are agreed to.
    Would anyone like to be recorded as a ``no'' on any of the 
nominees?
    (No response.)
    The Chairman. Thank you all for your tremendous cooperation 
in this.
    That completes the committee's business.
    We will now, in suspense, wait for Chairman Rubio to begin 
his hearing.
    And with that, we would like to allow the staff to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, the committee is adjourned. Thank you.


    [Whereupon, at 10:12 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

               Summary of Actions Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

    All Nominations were agreed to en bloc by voice vote, except 
Palmieri, who was held over.

  Ms. Lynda Blanchard, of Alabama, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Slovenia

  The Honorable Earl Robert Miller, of Michigan, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the People's Republic of Bangladesh

  Mr. Daniel N. Rosenblum, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Uzbekistan

  Mr. Kip Tom, of Indiana, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure 
        of service as U.S. Representative to the United Nations 
        Agencies for Food and Agriculture

  Ms. Karen L. Williams, of Missouri, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Suriname

  The Honorable Donald Y. Yamamoto, of Washington, a Career Member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Federal Republic of Somalia

  Mr. Kevin K. Sullivan, of Ohio, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Nicaragua

  Mr. Francisco Luis Palmieri, of Connecticut, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Honduras--held over

  Mr. Mark Rosen, of Connecticut, to be United States Executive 
        Director of the International Monetary Fund

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m. in 
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Flake, 
Gardner, Young, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Menendez, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Murphy, and Kaine.
    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    On the agenda today are nine nominees.
    Senator Menendez, would you like to make any comments?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I will introduce my remarks 
for the record. I support all of the nominees.

    [The prepared statement of Senator Menendez follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Robert Menendez

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this business meeting.
    Before I get to the nominees on the agenda today, let me start by 
underscoring the importance of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
exercising oversight of Russia policy. We have before us a 
comprehensive bill--the Defending American Security from Kremlin 
Aggression (DASKA) that I introduced with Senator Graham--before us. 
This bill includes many provisions that comprise a comprehensive Russia 
policy--keeping the U.S. in NATO.organizing our bureaucracy to 
effectively defend against Kremlin aggression.as well as imposing a 
series of financial, energy, sectoral and oligarch sanctions.
    This committee has a long history of deliberating sanctions policy, 
as sanctions are a tool we use as part of broad national security 
strategies. It's important for this committee to maintain jurisdiction 
over comprehensive foreign policy, and I therefore urge the chairman to 
mark-up the Graham-Menendez bill, and would be concerned by efforts to 
separate sanctions from this process.
    There are a number of nominees on the agenda today, and I support 
all of them.
    In particular, I want to mention how pleased I am with the veteran 
career State Department nominees before us today. They collectively 
have many decades worth of service to this country, and impressive 
regional expertise that they have brought to some of the most difficult 
posts across the globe.
    I am particularly impressed by the nomination of Ambassador Earl 
Miller, a former Regional Security Officer who, among his many 
decorations, has been awarded the State Department Award for Heroism, 
as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation Shield of Bravery.
    I also want to highlight the nomination of Ambassador Donald 
Yamamoto to be U.S. Ambassador to Somalia, one of the most challenging 
posts in the world. Our military engagement in Somalia appears to be on 
an upward trajectory. We need to ensure that we are supporting our 
diplomatic and development efforts to the same degree, and I cannot 
think of a better nominee for this post than Ambassador Yamamoto, a 
seasoned diplomat who has served his country for nearly 40 years, much 
of it in Africa or in State's Africa bureau. These are the kinds of 
nominations that I would like to see more of.
    I also want to call attention to the ambassadorial nominations in 
the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Nicaragua, where legitimate 
peaceful protests have been met with a state-sponsored, months-long 
massacre by the Ortega regime. Nicaragua is a challenging post that 
requires leadership, historical knowledge and expertise, so I am 
pleased by the nomination of Kevin Sullivan, a skilled and experienced 
career diplomat with more than twenty years of experience in the 
hemisphere.
    I wish all of these nominees well, and urge my colleagues to 
support their nominations.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Seeing no comments, I have received a letter 
to hold over the nomination of Mr. Francisco Luis Palmieri to 
be Ambassador to Honduras. By the way, his written answers just 
did come in, but apparently I know that one of our members here 
was not able to read those yet. So we will consider him next 
time.
    So we will now consider all the other items on the agenda, 
including the following: Ms. Lynda Blanchard to be Ambassador 
to Slovenia; the Honorable Earl Robert Miller to be Ambassador 
to Bangladesh; Mr. Daniel Rosenblum to be Ambassador to 
Uzbekistan; Mr. Kip Tom to be U.S. Representative to the United 
Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture; Ms. Karen Williams 
to be Ambassador to the Republic of Suriname; the Honorable 
Donald Yamamoto to be Ambassador to Somalia; Mr. Kevin Sullivan 
to be Ambassador to Nicaragua; Mr. Mark Rosen to be U.S. 
Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund.
    Is there a motion to favorably report these nominations en 
bloc by voice vote?
    Senator Kaine. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to report favorably the 
nominations. All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it and the 
nominations 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.
    And with that, without objection, the business meeting will 
adjourn.


    [Whereupon, at 10:16 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1862, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, 
        with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Coons added as a cosponsor)

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 2200, Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and 
        Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, with an amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute and amendments--agreed to by voice 
        vote

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

   Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--agreed to by voice vote

   Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 2--agreed to by voice vote

   Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 3--agreed to by voice vote

   Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--agreed to by voice vote

        Corker 2nd Degree Amendment No. 1 to Paul 1st Degree 
            Amendment No. 1--agreed to by roll call vote (18-2)

          Ayes: Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Flake, Gardner, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman (proxy), 
        Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and 
        Booker

          Nays: Paul and Merkley

  S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, with an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute and an amendment--agreed to by 
        voice vote

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

   Cardin 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--agreed to by voice vote

S. 3233, Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice 
        vote

   Managers Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

H.R. 600, Digital GAP Act, with an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute--agreed to by voice vote

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

H.R. 1677, Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2017, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment--
        agreed to by voice vote

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

   Corker 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--agreed to by voice vote

   Paul 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--not agreed to by roll call vote 
        (1-20)

          Ayes: Paul

          Nays: Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Flake, Gardner, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Isakson, Portman (proxy), 
        Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall (proxy), Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

S. 3257, STOP Using Human Shields Act, with an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote (Kaine and Coons added 
        as a cosponsor)

   Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

S. 3476, PEPFAR Extension Act of 2018--agreed to by voice vote (Isakson 
        and Coons added as a cosponsor)

S. Res. 435, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        85th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933, known as 
        the Holodomor, should serve as a reminder of repressive Soviet 
        policies against the people of Ukraine--agreed to by voice vote

S. Res. 481, A resolution calling upon the leadership of the Government 
        of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to dismantle its 
        labor camp system, and for other purposes, with an amendment--
        agreed to by voice vote

   Barrasso 1st Degree Amendment No. 1 REVISED--agreed to by voice 
        vote

S. Res. 562, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 
        continues to make an invaluable contribution to United States 
        and international security, 50 years after it opened for 
        signature on July 1, 1968, with amendments--Held over

S. Res. 602, A resolution supporting the agreement between Prime 
        Minister Tsipras of Greece and Prime Minister Zaev of Macedonia 
        to resolve longstanding bilateral disputes, with amendments--
        agreed to by voice vote

   Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

   Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

S. Res. 634, A resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 
        Berlin Airlift and honoring the veterans of Operation Vittles, 
        with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

   Risch 1st Degree Amendment No. 1--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

Mr. Francisco Luis Palmieri, of Connecticut, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Honduras--agreed to by 
        voice vote

The Honorable Ronald Johnson, of Wisconsin, to be a Representative of 
        the United States of America to the Seventy-third Session of 
        the General Assembly of the United Nations--agreed to by voice 
        vote

The Honorable Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, to be a Representative of the 
        United States of America to the Seventy-third Session of the 
        General Assembly of the United Nations--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 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, Isakson, Portman, Paul, Menendez, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Coons, 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. This is quite 
a meeting where hopefully a number of pieces of legislation 
will be passed out. So, I not only want to thank our staff and 
the Menendez staff for working through these, but really 
everyone's staff who has been involved. So, thank you all so 
much.
    On the agenda today there are 13 pieces of legislation and 
three nominations. First on the agenda is S. 1862, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This bill 
marks an important step forward in the fight against human 
trafficking, and I encourage all senators to support this bill 
to underscore our bipartisan commitment to end modern slavery. 
The substitute amendment to this bill reflects the same 
consensus we reached in this committee last year when we 
reported out S. 1848 to adjust the requirements of the TIP 
report based on extensive hearings and oversight conducted by 
the committee. It also the product of a lengthy negotiating 
process with the House of Representatives. I would like to 
thank Senators Menendez, Rubio, and Cardin for working with us 
to support this important effort.
    We will also be moving the House companion bill, H.R. 2200, 
the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and 
Protection Reauthorization Act, today. The substitute amendment 
to H.R. 2200 also represents the product of extensive 
negotiations with the House, and makes changes to reconcile 
overlap between H.R. 2200 and S. 1862.
    We will also consider S. 2736, the Asia Reassurance 
Initiative Act. I would like to thank Senators Gardner and 
Markey for their continued leadership on U.S. policy in the 
Indo-Pacific. And I want to thank the other co-sponsors on this 
committee for supporting this legislation, and Senator Menendez 
for working with us to strengthen the underlying text and move 
this important piece of legislation forward.
    This bill provides a framework for a comprehensive approach 
to the region. The legislation reaffirms key alliances, 
provides direction for strengthening key partnerships, and 
underscores support for human rights and democratic values 
throughout the region. At a time when North Korea dominates 
headlines about the region, it is critical that we remind the 
American people of the breadth and scope of U.S. political, 
economic, and security interests in the Indo-Pacific. This 
legislation will do just that.
    Next on the agenda is S. 3233, the Nicaragua Human Rights 
and Anticorruption Act. I thank Senator Menendez for his 
leadership on this legislation and for working with us to 
develop the substitute text before us today. The substitute 
amendment combines S. 3233 and text from S. 2265, the 
Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality Act. Both bills have 
numerous co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. The current 
crisis in Nicaragua began on April 18th, 2018, when university 
students began protesting changes to the country's social 
security system. Soon, thousands of Nicaraguans took to the 
streets to demand free elections and democratic reforms. 
Hundreds have been killed, and negotiations mediated by the 
Catholic Church have so far failed to reach a peaceful way 
forward.
    This bill directs U.S. representatives at international 
financial institutions to oppose any loan or financial 
assistance to the Nicaraguan Government, and it applies 
targeted sanctions until the Secretary of State certifies that 
the Government of Nicaragua is combatting corruption, 
protecting civil rights, investigating and prosecuting human 
rights violators, and holding free and fair elections.
    H.R. 600, the Digital GAP Act, promotes global access to 
the internet by encouraging ``build-once'' approaches for 
infrastructure projects in developing countries and other 
activities to help expand internet access. The internet has 
contributed to economic growth around the world and has the 
potential to help raise people out of poverty. I would like to 
thank Senator Markey for his leadership on this bill and for 
working with us to craft the substitute amendment.
    Next, we will consider H.R. 1677, the Caesar Civilian 
Protection Act. I want to thank Senator Menendez and our 
counterparts on the Foreign Affairs Committee for working with 
us on the substitute amendment that we will consider today. 
This bill is named for the Syrian activist and military 
defector known as ``Caesar.'' In 2013, Caesar smuggled tens of 
thousands of photos from Syria that documented the Assad 
regime's torture of prisoners. Human Rights Watch later used 
these photos to conclude that at least 6,786 detainees had died 
in prison by that point.
    This bill seeks to counter the Assad regime's Russian--and 
Iranian--backed attacks on civilians by sanctioning those who 
support the Assad regime's military aircraft construction and 
engineering sectors. It also sanctions those responsible for 
human rights abuses against Syrian civilians and their 
families, whether or not those individuals are currently based 
in Syria.
    We will also consider S. 3257, the STOP Using Human Shields 
Act. The first version of this legislation, which would 
sanction Hizballah members' use of human shields, was 
introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Gallagher, who 
previously served on our staff. I want to thank him for giving 
this heinous tactic the attention that it deserves. I also want 
to recognize Senators Cruz and Donnelly for expanding the 
sanctions in S. 3257 to also sanction members of Hamas and 
other terrorist groups for their use of human shields. And I 
want to thank Senator Menendez for working with us on the 
substitute amendment.
    Next on the agenda is S. 3476, the PEPFAR Extension Act. 
Thank you, Senator Menendez, for co-sponsoring this important 
piece of legislation. When PEPFAR first started 15 years ago, 
there were only 50,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa with access 
to antiretroviral treatments. Today, in large part, thanks to 
the United States, more than 14 million people are receiving 
treatment, and 2.2 million babies have born HIV free to mothers 
kept alive and healthy by these treatments. PEPFAR continues to 
report historic improvements, including, for the first time, 
significant declines in new HIV diagnoses among adolescent 
girls and young women. I am glad to join this bipartisan effort 
to extend PEPFAR authorities, and I urge all of you to support 
this bill.
    We also have on the agenda five resolutions: S. Res. 435, 
expressing the sense of the Senate that the 85th anniversary of 
the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33, known as the Holodomor, should 
serve as a reminder of repressive Soviet policies against the 
people of Ukraine; S. Res. 481, calling upon the leadership of 
the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to 
dismantle its labor camp system; S. Res. 562, expressing the 
sense of the Senate that the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons continues to make invaluable contribution to 
the United States and international security 50 years after it 
was opened for signature July 1st, 1968; S. Res. 602, 
supporting the agreement between Prime Minister Tsipras of 
Greece and Prime Minister Zaev of Macedonia to resolve 
longstanding bilateral disputes; and S. Res. 634, commemorating 
the 70th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift and honoring the 
veterans of this effort. I would like to recognize Senators 
Portman, Hatch, Merkley, Murphy, and Risch for sponsoring these 
resolutions, and thank all of the resolution co-sponsors for 
their support as well. I have received a letter to hold over S. 
Res. 562. We will consider this resolution at the next business 
meeting.
    And finally, and I am so sorry for this long opening, but a 
lot of work today. Finally, we will consider the nomination of 
Mr. Francisco Luis Palmieri to be Ambassador to Honduras, which 
was held over from the last meeting. We will consider the 
nominations of Senators Johnson and Merkley to be 
representatives to the 73rd Session of the U.N. General 
Assembly.
    With that, thankfully complete, Senator Menendez, would you 
like to add any comments?

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

    Senator Menendez. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a 
robust agenda. You have done a very admirable job of going 
through all of the legislation and resolutions, all of which I 
support. I also support the nomination of Francisco Palmieri to 
be the U.S. ambassador to Honduras, as well as the nominations 
of Senators Merkley and Johnson. I know they will represent us 
well at the United Nations General Assembly. Just a few 
comments, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start by thanking you for working with me to advance 
my legislation addressing the crisis in Nicaragua, in which the 
Ortega government and its paramilitary groups have killed more 
than 300 men, women, and children. Early in this crisis, a 15-
year-old protestor was shot in his throat by Ortega's security 
forces. And among his dying words he said, ``me duele 
respirar,'' which means ``It hurts to breathe.'' His words 
became a rallying cry to describe the suffering of the 
Nicaraguan people amidst this wave of government-sponsored 
violence. This legislation is a response to that cry by the 
Nicaraguan people. The substitute amendment we are voting on 
today expresses support for a negotiated solution to the 
current crisis, includes targeted sanctions, and infuses my 
original bill with a modified version of the Cruz-Leahy NICA 
Act.
    We also have before us today the Corker-Menendez substitute 
amendment for S. 1862, the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act, and H.R. 2200. My thanks to you and your 
staff for your unwavering dedication to advancing this 
legislation and for your passion on combatting human 
trafficking. The Corker-Menendez bill we will consider today is 
a strong product that reflects the committee's bipartisan 
commitment to end human trafficking.
    Objectively evaluating countries' efforts is critical to 
the integrity of the TIP report, but over the past few years we 
have seen political interference influence the State 
Department's report and decision-making. S. 1862 seeks to 
rectify those problems, including by strengthening the minimum 
standards countries must meet, clarifying actions that 
countries must take to earn higher rankings, and enhancing 
transparency and congressional oversight of the ranking 
process. I look forward to moving our bill as well as the 
substitute amendment for H.R. 2200.
    On H.R. 2200, my staff has been working with the HELP 
Committee to ensure that certain labor trafficking reporting 
and training requirements are incorporated into the bill, and I 
look forward to working with Senator Murray to achieve that 
goal prior to passage of the bill. I look forward to seeing 
both of them become law.
    Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that we are taking up the 
straight PEPFAR reauthorization that you and I introduced, and 
I appreciate our mutual work on this bill. PEPFAR has enabled 
more than 2.2 million babies of HIV positive mothers to be born 
HIV negative, but there is still much more work to be done. 
More than 15 million people who are HIV positive are not 
accessing treatment, and approximately 7,000 young women aged 
15 to 24 years become infected with HIV each week. In light of 
this need, I urge all of our colleagues to support 
reauthorization.
    We have a number of resolutions on the agenda today. I 
support all of them, and, in particular, I just want to 
highlight one: my support for Senator Portman's resolution on 
the 85th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine of 1932 to 1933, 
known as the Holodomor. This was one of the greatest tragedies 
of the 20th century, deliberately engineered by the Government 
of the then Soviet Union to break the Ukrainian national 
resistance. Today, Ukraine faces threats from an ever-more 
aggressive Kremlin. We have to continue to support Ukraine's 
efforts to counter Kremlin aggression and the Ukrainian 
people's work towards strengthening democratic principles and 
full respect for human rights. As a co-sponsor of the 
resolution, I wholeheartedly support its passage. And as I 
said, Mr. Chairman, I support all the other pieces of 
legislation and nominations as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much. Do you want to 
say something, Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Could I just be added as a co-sponsor of S. 
1862, TVPA, S. 3476, PEPFAR, and such other bills?
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Coons. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly 
about Senate Res. 634, which celebrates the 70th anniversary of 
the Berlin Airlift. The reason for this and the purpose of it 
is, there is a lot of discussion going on about the 
transatlantic relationship right now. I think it is important 
that we look at and refresh our memories about the airlift and 
how critical it was in establishing NATO. Now, West Germany 
itself did not join NATO until 1955, but the airlift helped 
frame the U.S.-German relationship and friendship as it exists 
even today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Rubio. I just wanted to first briefly comment on 
the NICA Act, the Nicaraguan Human Rights and Anti-Corruption 
Act. Senator Menendez has covered most of it. I would just add 
that the situation there is one in which this government, 
facing widespread protests, has gone out and basically hired 
thugs, street gangs, to go out and kill people on behalf of the 
Government and precipitating the crisis that we now see there. 
I would argue that in addition to the human rights aspect of 
it, the United States has a national interest in this matter.
    Number one, Nicaragua is not currently a transit point for 
drugs headed to the United States. Even if stability continues, 
it could very well become one. Second, if this triggers a 
migratory crisis like what we are seeing in Venezuela, it would 
further destabilize already--countries that are already 
struggling--Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Costa Rica--
that is growing increasingly worrisome in terms of the 
challenges they face.
    All these things become transit points for cocaine to be 
poured into the United States. Again, not to mention our 
interest in democracy and human rights, which is paramount, I 
would add that what they are trying to pull off in Nicaragua is 
now a troubling trend, and that is the ability of autocrats to, 
through sheer oppression, hold on to power and be accepted over 
time because of--people grow tired and focus on something else. 
That is what they are trying to pull off in Venezuela. It is 
what I fear may happen in Nicaragua. So, I am grateful we are 
pulling this up.
    I had asked to delay, and we did, the nomination today. I 
am not opposing the nomination of Mr. Palmieri. I do want to 
point out that I have and will continue to engage with him on a 
series of questions. He was in charge of the Western Hemisphere 
Affairs at the time of the attacks on our personnel in Havana. 
I think setting aside for a moment who is responsible for it--
people can debate that--I think we can all agree that the 
safety and security of American personnel stationed abroad 
should always be paramount. And I am concerned and want deeper 
answers as to how this was handled, how quickly did they know 
about it, how quickly was it reported up the chain, and how 
this matter was handled for purposes of the safety of the 
people that were working there, which is the one thing I think 
everyone can agree on no matter what we feel about Cuba policy.
    We cannot be sending people into harm's way to represent 
this country around the world and then not fight and stand up 
for them when they are harmed. And if our State Department has 
failed in reporting that and starting the review process in 
addressing these complaints, it is the job of this committee to 
conduct that oversight. And so, I hope we will get some clear 
answers, not just the sort of stuff that is already publicly 
out there. Who knew it, when did they know it, and what did 
they do immediately about it? I want to make sure that these 
people who work for this country abroad were treated and that 
in the future this does not happen to anybody. So, thank you.
    The Chairman. No, thank you.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Gardner. Would you prefer that we wait for the bill 
to come up before we make comments?
    The Chairman. Maybe, yeah. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thanks 
for asking, and thanks for your great work and patience. So, 
with that, we will just move through. I do want to say that on 
the Nicaragua issue, our own Caleb McCarry took off and spent a 
substantial amount of time trying to bring the Catholic Church 
and the Ortegas together. Eventually, all that you said, 
Senator Rubio and Senator Menendez, has happened, and obviously 
we are very, very supportive of this piece of legislation, and 
saddened--saddened--that the leadership of Nicaragua is taking 
the approach they have taken. So, I thank all of you.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak on 
Nicaragua, even right now if I might just for one moment.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Cardin. And that is I strongly support this 
legislation, and thank you for your work on it and the staff's 
work on it, and also strengthening civil societies within 
Nicaragua. And I appreciate the fact that you were able to 
include that also.
    The Chairman. Thank you. With that, we will move to S. 
1862, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. 
Are there any additional comments before we approve it?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will now consider the 
substitute amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 1862, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice: Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve S. 1862, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Now, we will move to H.R. 2200, the Frederick Douglass 
Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization 
Act. Without objection, we will first consider the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
substitute amendment is agreed to.
    I understand that Senator Paul has an amendment. Would you 
like to speak to it?
    Senator Paul. Yes. I think that the committee is right to 
be greatly concerned with sexual trafficking and abuse of young 
people around the world in a variety of countries. I think we 
should not turn a blind eye towards when our allies are 
responsible for this as well. In Afghanistan, there has been 
much reporting of Afghan leaders using bacha bazi boys for sex 
as young as 10 years old, and this is a very common practice.
    I have a quote from Dan Quinn, a former special forces 
captain, who actually beat up an American-backed militia 
commander for keeping a boy of approximately 10 years of age 
chained to his bed as a sex slave. His complaint was we were 
putting into power those who could make things even far worse 
than things the Taliban did, and that these views were 
expressed to him as he traveled throughout Afghanistan.
    My amendment would say that no Afghan entity is allowed to 
receive funds from the U.S. until the special inspector general 
of SIGAR verifies that there are no child soldiers or sex 
slaves, commonly known as bacha bazi, being utilized by any 
individual or unit within the Department.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your amendment. I have a second 
degree to it that we will consider first, the Corker second 
degree amendment to the Paul first degree amendment. And I want 
to thank Senator Menendez for his support of this second degree 
amendment.
    While I enthusiastically support the spirit of Senator 
Paul's amendment and understand what he is trying to do, I have 
major concerns with the approach his amendment takes. It would 
guarantee the withdrawal of U.S. support for Afghanistan by 
setting an unachievable standard requiring a SIGAR verification 
that there is zero cases of sexual slavery, or the utilization 
of child soldiers by any unit, or even individual, within the 
Afghan military or police forces. Such a withdrawal would not 
only be problematic from a broad U.S. national security 
standpoint, it would also exacerbate the very issues the 
amendment seeks to address, essentially eliminating our 
opportunity to bring these abhorrent practices to an end on the 
ground.
    The second degree amendment that I am offering, I think, is 
a much more balanced approached, one that protects our ability 
to continue defending our national security interests in 
Afghanistan and enhances our ability to effectively influence 
Afghan authorities to confront these abhorrent activities that 
are taking place. Is there any more--any discussion on the 
second degree amendment?
    Senator Paul. Yeah, I would like to speak in opposition to 
it. I think that basically you would gut the entire enforcement 
mechanism, and I think by doing so, you really do not show 
significant concern for what is happening to these boys. You 
are going to have a report instead of a punishment. My 
amendment would actually punish them by removing funds. It is a 
real punishment and might have some effect.
    Having a report on this will have no effect, and I think 
essentially turns a blind eye to a horrific practice that is 
going on there. And I think to say, well, we could never have 
zero tolerance, well, I think many of us here would say we 
should have zero tolerance for having sex slaves. We cannot 
have zero tolerance for sex slaves? Sure we should. And if 
there is evidence of it, they should not be getting any of our 
money. And so, I absolutely think that we need to a stronger 
version of it, and that the second degree would gut it and make 
it meaningless, and, in essence, show tacit support for 
allowing the practice to continue.
    The Chairman. Yeah. I think the second degree actually 
forces us to implement those changes and would actually make a 
difference, whereas a total withdrawal from Afghanistan would 
not.
    All those in favor of the Corker----
    Senator Paul. I would request a roll call vote.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Okay. All those in favor? 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?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.
    [No response.]
    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 nays are 2.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Now we will vote on the Paul first degree amendment, as 
amended by the Corker second degree amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
    Senator Cardin also has filed three first degree 
amendments. Senator Cardin, would you like to speak to them?
    Senator Cardin. So, I understand that we can consider these 
en bloc?
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Cardin. I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
helping me deal with these amendments. They deal with 
references to the Global Magnitsky sanctions. It also deals 
with understanding the cause of the--of child trafficking, and 
I would urge our colleagues to support them.
    The Chairman. Without anyone else wishing to speak, all 
those in favor of passing these en bloc, 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.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 2200, as amended?
    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 H.R. 2200, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. 2736, the Asia Reassurance 
Initiative Act. Are there any senators who would like to 
comment? Yes, sir.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and the ranking member, and Senator Cardin, and 
Senator Markey for co-sponsoring this legislation. This has 
been a several years' project that we have worked on to create 
an Indo-Pacific strategy. When I took over the Subcommittee on 
East Asia, it became very clear in conversations throughout the 
region that U.S. presence was a concern, and U.S. commitment to 
the region was a concern.
    Building off of the Asia-Pacific Security Initiative that 
was included in the legislation, working with PACOM, the State 
Department, and Senator Kaine, we have created a very strong 
bill to provide security opportunities for routine sales 
imported to Taiwan, language toward most of the countries 
throughout Asia as it relates to our security alliances, and 
agreements, and partnerships, freedom of navigation operations 
through the South China Sea, and opportunities to engage in 
counterterrorism operations, maritime domain awareness.
    And the economic provisions of the legislation built on 
multilateral and bilateral trade agreements throughout Asia and 
increasing U.S. trade opportunities for energy, like renewable 
energy, opportunities, addressing some environmental challenges 
throughout Asia, and creating U.S. partnerships with those 
environmental concerns, like Vietnam, and Mekong Delta issues, 
and others. And then the rule of law and human rights, to 
provide additional funding for the U.S. efforts throughout the 
region and human rights topic and make sure that we provide 
funding in the region to highlight actions and activities that 
we find offensive to U.S. values and norms, and whether that is 
the Jalen Weavers in China, or whether that is the detain--
detainment of--detention of Radio Free Asia reporters by China, 
or Burmese refugees in Rohingya and others' treatment 
throughout the region, and what we would highlight in U.S. 
values.
    So, I thank Senator Markey for his work and cooperation on 
this bipartisan legislation. I have two things for the record. 
One is a letter of support, a joint letter from Secretary 
Mattis and Secretary Pompeo supporting the legislation, and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, senior vice president for Asia, 
Charles Freeman, in support of the legislation. But I thank all 
of you who have been a part of the nearly dozen hearings we 
have had over the past couple of years for this legislation we 
have got.
    [The information referred to follows:]

          Statement Submitted by Charles Freeman, Senior Vice 
              President for Asia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Asia Reassurance 
Initiative Act of 2018'' and thanks Senator Gardner for his efforts to 
strengthen U.S. strategic and economic relationships across the Indo-
Pacific region. Particularly with regard to the legislation's economic 
goals, we appreciate the bill's focus on closer trade ties, stronger 
protections for intellectual property, and a renewed focus on trade 
facilitation. We look forward to working with Senator Gardner and the 
Congress to advance these important objectives.

    [The letter from Secretary Mattis and Secretary Pompeo is 
located at the end of this transcript.]

    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and Senator Markey, you are all 
things Asia-Pacific and you have done your homework here, and 
built incredible support. And I thank you both for your 
patience, but also your tenacity and diligence. Yes, sir.
    Senator Cardin. I also want to acknowledge Senator 
Gardner's extraordinary leadership over a period of time now in 
East-Asia and the Pacific and working with Senator Markey. So, 
I think this legislation is--reflects that commitment that you 
have made. I support the chairman's substitute, which includes 
an amendment I offered that would be the sense of Congress in 
support of women's economic rights in Asia. As you pointed out, 
Senator Gardner, the bill is strong in dealing with human 
rights and good governance, et cetera, and I think, 
particularly in that region, we need to stress the rights of 
women.
    The Chairman. Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you so much. Senator Gardner has 
given you the parameters of the legislation and the 11 
hearings, which we had, and I just would like to give 
assurances to people that it was completely bipartisan, the 
witnesses that were selected, the subjects that were discussed, 
the issues that were finally resolved and included in this 
legislation. It was really a model, and I thank you, Senator 
Gardner, for conducting those hearings and the construction of 
the legislation in that way. And of course I want to thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, Senator Menendez, and all the staffs for 
everything you have done to try to help to ensure that this was 
a bill that could be as comprehensive as it is, and it is, that 
it deals with as many issues as it does. But just coming back 
to something that I would say, that it is a model for the way 
in which legislation of this magnitude should be constructed. 
So, I thank you.
    The Chairman. It is. Thank you. I thank you both. Senator 
Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a 
provision in this act that I have a strong difference with. And 
I would have liked to have presented an amendment on that when 
this was distributed as I am representing this committee at the 
U.N. General Assembly, but I have been told that there will be 
an objection if I present it, so I will just explain what it 
is.
    But first, the overall sense of this effort is really to be 
commended. The work that Senator Gardner has done, the work 
that Senator Markey has done, and so many participating in 
these hearings put forth this vision. The issue that I would 
like for us to have discussed, Senator Gardner has agreed to 
work with me to make sure that if this bill is on the floor, it 
will be discussed, if that is a fair way to represent it?
    Senator Gardner. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. And I appreciate that. There is a 
provision on page 49 that refers to the U.S. should support LNG 
exports to the Indo-Pacific region. We are at a point in human 
civilization right now where carbon pollution worldwide is 
accelerating, not decreasing, despite the work that has been 
done in Paris and thereafter. We are seeing phenomenal 
consequences from this pollution, including the fires 
throughout the northwest of the United States, the storms 
throughout the East Coast and the southeast, and so much more 
besides: the moose dying in the State of New Hampshire, a whole 
host of impacts that were estimated to be several hundred 
billion dollars of damage in 2017.
    If we lock the world into another generation of burning 
fossil fuels, we will have done massive damage to this planet, 
and it is the only planet we have. In just the 10 years that I 
have been serving in this U.S. Senate, half the coral reefs in 
the world have been profoundly damaged or have died. We now 
have to change the acidity of the Pacific Ocean in order for 
oysters to reproduce on the West Coast of the United States of 
America. We cannot continue to ignore this problem.
    I would like to see us to have debated this today. We have 
to have this conversation. Despite the economic winds that--in 
the short term that can occur from one more fossil fuel 
project, there is huge economic losses and damage that are 
occurring. So, I appreciate that the sponsor will work to have 
this issue debated on the floor, and I will support this bill 
today thanks to the courtesy of the sponsors to address this on 
the floor.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you for understanding that we 
need to keep some type of format here, and I appreciate that, 
and I appreciate the way Senator Gardner is willing to work 
with you.
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank 
you to Senator Merkley as well, and I look forward to working 
with you to get this in shape.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. So, without objection, we will now consider 
the substitute amendment, as modified by the Cardin first 
degree amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment, as modified by the Cardin amendment, is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 2736, as amended?
    Senator Murphy. So moved.
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice: Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve S. 2736, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Now we will move to S. 3233, the Nicaragua Human Rights and 
Anticorruption Act. Would any senators like to comment further 
on this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will now consider the 
manager's amendment, which incorporates elements of the Cardin 
and Rubio first degree amendments and makes technical changes 
to the sanctions provisions.
    All those in favor of the manager's amendment, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
manager's amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 3233, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice: Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve S. 3233, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next on the agenda is H.R. 600, the Digital GAP Act. Are 
there any comments on this bill?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the developing 
world, from, I think, all of our perspective, it is critical 
that we work even harder to break down the digital divide so 
that we can telescope the time frame which it takes for markets 
to develop in developing countries, in this internet economy, 
which is the economy of the 21st century. And what this bill 
will do is just to direct to the State Department, to USAID, to 
the Peace Corps, to all of our agencies that they have to 
prioritize the work which they do in helping for the 
development of these internet communication systems, 
telecommunication systems, which ultimately are at the heart of 
this explosive growth in the United States.
    And the faster that we can help them to achieve it in Third 
World countries and developing countries is the faster that 
they can just move, as they have with energy in many countries 
from the old to the new. We need to do the same thing here in 
telecommunications because ultimately, that is the market-based 
system which is going to transform this country. So, I thank 
you, again, Mr. Chairman. I thank Senator Menendez for your 
help on this legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. Without objection, we will 
now consider the substitute amendment. All those in favor, say 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 600, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. So moved. and seconded. 
The question is on the motion to approve H.R. 600, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next up is H.R. 1677, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection 
Act. I filed a first degree amendment to make a technical 
clarification that reflects how the Treasury Department 
administers sanctions. Are there any comments on this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will now consider the 
substitute amendment, as modified by the Corker first degree 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment, as modified by the Corker first degree amendment, is 
agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I think there is a larger discussion here. We 
kind of approached it a little bit more at one of our recent 
hearings when the chairman asked the question, which I think is 
a very important question, are we seeing a change in behavior 
with sanctions, and I think the acknowledgement is that we are 
not. I think as we look at sanctions, all sanctions are not the 
same either, and that we should perhaps whether or not it is a 
good idea to sanction dialogue.
    Let us say, for example, that you want to admonish the 
Russians, but you are not allowed to have any dialogue with 
Russian legislators. I think it is a mistake to sanction 
specific legislators from traveling to this country, and I 
think it would be better if, even in the midst of adding more 
sanctions, we considered removing some sanctions on dialogue.
    What my amendment would do would be to say that upon the 
Russians removing sanctions on our legislators that are 
currently sanctioned, we would remove the sanctions on theirs. 
And I think this would be a reciprocal trade that would be 
worthwhile. Currently, we sanction simply their chairman of 
their foreign relations committee in their upper body and their 
lower body simply for their position. Not for cause, but simply 
for their position and maybe for their political viewpoint or 
things that they have said. But really, in general, for things 
that Russia has done at large.
    So, I think it is worth considering amidst Russia, adding 
more sanctions, whether or not sanctioning dialogue is useful 
and whether or not we ought to consider an exemption to 
sanctioning dialogue, and see if we could actually get more 
dialogue between us and Russian legislators.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Well, I thank Senator Paul for his 
explanation. I strongly disagree and would urge my colleagues 
to reject this. The sanctions that are imposed on the 
parliamentarians in Russia are not imposed because of their 
position. It is because of what they have done in regards to 
the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky. I am all for dialogue. I am 
for all dialogue. But your amendment would suggest that there 
is an equal accountability on what Russia is doing in its 
retaliatory sanctions than what the United States did in the 
process of imposing Magnitsky sanctions.
    There is a long process that you go through, including in 
the Treasury, which is a pretty high standard before someone is 
placed on the--on the Magnitsky list. So, I just take exception 
that there is any equal aspect to sanctions that are imposed 
under the process we use under the Sergei Magnitsky Act and 
what Russia did in----
    Senator Paul. Can I make a really quick response because I 
think there is a factual misunderstanding here. None of the 
people that we would be removing sanctions on have been 
sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act or from Treasury. These are 
separate. There are 28 people that we sanctioned in Russia. 
Twenty-six of the 28 were simply sanctioned for policy. Twenty-
two are sanctioned, but one by Magnitsky Act and one by 
Treasury for cause. So, there are two of the 28 that are for 
cause. Twenty-six have nothing to do, and so do we not touch 
the Magnitsky Act, and we do not relieve anybody of sanction by 
the Magnitsky Act.
    Senator Cardin. But every one of the legislative sanctions 
was done as a reaction to what--to sanction activity that was 
justified against Russia. Do not legitimate that by saying 
there is any equation at all between what Russia has done and 
what the United States----
    Senator Paul. I am not saying that. I am just simply 
saying----
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. You did. You are saying----
    Senator Paul [continuing]. Well, I am simply saying that 
there is a question of whether or not it is a good idea to 
sanction dialogue and diplomacy. I think that is what we are 
doing here.
    Senator Cardin. To the contrary. What we are doing is 
standing up against Russia's activities, and those individuals 
that participated in those activities. And if we were to say--
you are rewarding Russia if you were to say that--it worked by 
sanctioning, and we should acknowledge that some of us do have 
conflicts on this because we are sanctioned. But it is 
ridiculous to legitimate what Russia did by rewarding them, by 
removing sanctions that were applied for legitimate reasons 
under process here in the United States. I would strongly 
disagree with my colleague.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, philosophically, I agree with 
Senator Paul that dialogue is a good thing, and if we were 
dealing with an honest broker here, that there might be some 
merit in trying to do this. But these are sanctions that have 
been imposed because of Russia's actions: their actions to 
interfere in our elections, their actions to occupy Ukraine and 
Crimea and basically seize Crimea, their actions in the Middle 
East. And, you know, as Senator Cardin said, if we are willing 
to forego those sanctions, then we essentially are allowing 
approval of what Russia has done.
    And I also have a personal perspective, not just because, 
like others here, I have been sanctioned by Russia in terms of 
going there, but I managed a program when I was at the Kennedy 
School that for a period of time brought in members of the Duma 
to try and help them move towards democracy and to look at 
democratic processes. And what we discovered was that the 
members who came over were, in fact, not coming over because 
they wanted to know about democracy building and about civil 
society. They were oligarchs. They were thugs, basically 
criminals in many cases, who were coming because it was a way 
to get a visa to come to the United States to shop, to do 
whatever they wanted. And I think we would open a door to that 
by passing something like this.
    So, I am totally opposed as long as Russia continues to 
behave the way they are for us to reduce our ability to 
sanction them for those actions.
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Yeah, I am one of the legislators who is 
on the Russian Government's sanctions list. And I think 
suggesting a moral equivalency between the actions that I and 
other senators here have taken to support U.S. policy to 
respond to a military invasion and other forms of Kremlin 
aggression and the actions of Duma members, who have been part 
and parcel of that aggression, is just simply wrong.
    Sanctions should be imposed as consequences for actual 
behavior, and accordingly, they should be lifted when that 
behavior changes. And so, I see no reason at this time to 
modify our approach to the Kremlin's attacks against the U.S. 
and our allies, and I am really not holding my breath that the 
Kremlin's most sycophantic Duma enablers will soon change 
course. If for some reason they do, the administration can move 
to change its Russia-related sanctions posture with the 
Senate's consultation and approval, as we established 
overwhelmingly in our bipartisan CAATSA legislation that is now 
law. But I do not believe a fawning statement from the 
committee will facilitate that, so I am strongly opposed to the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Senator Gardner.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Senator 
Paul started an important conversation here. I am not ready to 
support this amendment yet, but I do think all of us have had 
members of legislatures or parliaments around the country in 
our offices probably every week, and the conversations and 
relationships we build with them are important. I think I want 
to continue the conversation on this, Senator Paul. I will not 
be supporting the amendment today, but I do think it is--
engagement with leaders around the globe is important.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. I want to echo the comments of Senator 
Gardner. I cannot support it at this moment in this fashion. I 
do believe that if this involved individuals whose lone actions 
had been beyond reproach, and that this was tailored simply to 
being able to visit each other's offices for conversations and 
not a lifting of all the travel restrictions that we have 
imposed, that we would have a stronger argument here.
    I do think we have difficult issues with Russia in which 
legislator-to-legislator discussions are part of our work in 
the U.S. Senate. But in no way should we act in a fashion which 
says individuals who were responsible for the invasion of 
Crimea, the occupation of Eastern Ukraine, the interference 
with American elections, or any other of the bad deeds of 
Russia, in no case should those individuals be--should 
sanctions be decreased.
    Senator Paul. I would just like to make a short response, 
is that if we had in the 1970s decided that we would have no 
travel between our legislators, you might not have seen a young 
Gorbachev travel to the United States. You might not have seen 
somebody who eventually became the leader who actually did open 
relations between the East and the West.
    The 26 people are not being sanctioned for cause. None of 
them are being sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act. None of them 
are sanctioned for anything individually. It is for policy. So, 
we have 26 people we are talking about. Is there a possibility 
among the 26 that there might the next leader of Russia in 10 
years or 20 years or maybe a year? There might be. To say we 
will not talk with the legislators and we will not have any 
kind of exchange of information, even criticism of the 
Russians, precluding that dialogue precludes any possibility of 
diplomacy.
    It is said that, well, we do not want to talk with people 
we do not trust. That is exactly who you need to talk to. I 
mean, it is easy to talk to England. It is easy to talk to 
Germany, to France, to people we have a great deal in common 
with. It is probably more important that we talk with people we 
do not have things in common with for which we have 
disagreements. We have things like the INF Treaty that we have 
problems. They say we are in violation, and we say they are in 
violation. We have the New START Treaty. We have all of these 
things around which we should be developing dialogue.
    The idea that we are not going to have any dialogue implies 
that sanctions are going to work the same way dropping nuclear 
weapons on Hiroshima worked, that we will get an unconditional 
surrender someday from Russia. That is not going to happen, the 
same way sanctioning China. China is not going to surrender. 
Everybody is jumping up and down, they are wanting to sanction 
China. It is not going to work. It is not going to work with 
Russia either.
    I think we at least should have some escape valve for which 
we would have conversation. Right now we have almost no 
conversation, and I would say that our dialogue is, by many 
accounts, as bad as it has been during--throughout the entire 
Cold War. I think it is a very modest proposal actually to talk 
about removing sanctions from legislators in exchange for them 
removing sanctions. It would mean more dialogue.
    And I find it really hard to believe that there are no 
voices for having dialogue with even our adversaries. It is not 
making moral equivalency. It is not sanctioning anything that 
Russia has done. It is actually having a forum where you can 
tell them it is not morally equivalent, that you object to 
their incursions into Ukraine, object to the election meddling. 
We cannot even complain to them because we do not have a 
dialogue.
    So, I would request that everybody be put on the record on 
this. And everybody has their own opinion and your own right to 
vote whichever way you want, but I would like to see a recorded 
vote.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. If I could say one thing. There are--the 
reason these people are being sanctioned is the Duma authorized 
the invasion of Ukraine. These people are leaders on foreign 
policy, and they caused the Duma to authorize the invasion of 
Ukraine and things that might change there. Secondly, our staff 
counted it. There are over 600 people in the Duma that we can 
meet with now that do not have sanctions, and, I might add, we 
can meet with them if you wish. You can meet with them in 
Israel or some other place in neutral territory. So, this does 
not keep us from having dialogue. I see these folks at the 
Munich Security Conference and other places.
    So, look, I am all for dialogue, but I agree with those who 
are saying we should not create equivalency here. I strongly 
oppose this piece of--this amendment. And I am worried about us 
losing that quorum, but----
    Senator Menendez. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, Kosachev, who 
is the chair of the Duma Foreign Relations Committee, was 
sanctioned for his role in the illegal annexation of Crimea. He 
is the one who passed it into law into the Duma. So, to me, 
that is spot on in terms of committing actions that ultimately 
should be sanctioned.
    The Chairman [continuing]. The vote is on the first degree 
amendment, which Senator Paul has offered, and 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?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    The Chairman. Mr. Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 1, the nays are 20.
    The Chairman. The amendment fails. Is there a motion to 
approve H.R. 1677, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve H.R. 1677, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next up is S. 3257, the STOP Using Human Shields Act. Would 
any senators like to speak to this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will now consider the 
substitute amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    Senator Kaine. Sorry, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. That is all right.
    Senator Kaine. I would like to be listed as a sponsor. I 
was not a sponsor of the original bill. The amendment solves 
the concerns I had with it, and I appreciate those who worked 
with me.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection. Without 
objection, we will now consider the substitute amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 3257, as amended?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve S. 3257, as amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next up is S. 3476, the PEPFAR Extension Act. Would any 
senators like to speak to this bill?
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Isakson. Could I ask to be added as a co-sponsor?
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you so much for all your work on 
Africa and other places.
    Without objection, the question is on S. 3476.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next, without objection, we will consider en bloc S. Res. 
435, S. Res. 481, S. Res. 602, and S. Res. 634, as amended by 
the noticed amendments to these resolutions, including the 
revised Barrasso first degree amendment to S. Res. 481. Would 
any members like to give additional comments on any of these 
items before we approve them? Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Just very quickly, and thanks to Senator 
Johnson for working on the resolutions supporting the agreement 
between the prime minister of Greece and the prime minister of 
Macedonia. I just hope this committee would watch very 
carefully. The Russians are going to flood the zone in 
Macedonia to try to prevent them from moving forward on NATO 
ascension and EU negotiations. Just something for the committee 
to watch carefully.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chair, thank you for including S. Res. 
435. This is the Holodomor resolution. Twenty of our colleagues 
have co-sponsored it. I think it is incredibly important. From 
1932 to 1933, millions of innocent Ukrainians died in a pre-
meditated manmade famine. That is what this is about. This was 
during the Stalin era. We appreciate your taking it up today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and thanks for your work on many 
of the issues around Ukraine.
    Is there a motion to approve?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to make me chairman of the 
universe? [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. So moved. [Laughter.]
    Senator Risch. Which universe is that?
    The Chairman. Would you like to say something?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support 
in working with me on the resolution celebrating the 50th 
anniversary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is being held 
over at the request of one of our members, which effectively 
kills it for this session of Congress. I think that is 
unfortunate. It would be better that we talk about the NPT and 
its role.
    The three pillars of the NPT still play a vital role in the 
world in terms of non-nuclear states, many non-nuclear. In 
terms of the second pillar, sharing peaceful nuclear 
technology, and in terms of the third pillar, the nuclear 
weapon states working to reduce their arsenals of nuclear 
weapons. That is a discussion that would have been a good for 
us to have, and the resolution, I regret, is not on the table 
today.
    The Chairman. We plan to do more before the end of the 
year.
    Is there a motion to approve en bloc these resolutions, as 
amended by noticed amendment?
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. and seconded. The question is on 
the motion to approve the resolutions, 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 
resolutions, as amended, are agreed to.
    Finally, without objection, we will consider, en bloc, the 
nominations of Mr. Francisco Luis Palmieri to be ambassador to 
Honduras, and Senators Johnson and Merkley to be 
representatives to the 73rd Session of the U.N. General 
Assembly.
    The question is on the approval of these nominations en 
bloc.
    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 
nominations 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.
    And with that, without objection, the committee stands 
adjourned. I thank all of you.


    [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]

                 Communication in Support of S. 2736, 
                  The Asia Reassurance Initiative Act

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 3247, Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 
        2018, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed 
        to by voice vote (Gardner added as a co-sponsor)

     Revised Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3654, United States Agency for Global Media and Public Diplomacy 
        Modernization Act, with an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 562, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 
        continues to make an invaluable contribution to United States 
        and international security, 50 years after it opened for 
        signature on July 1, 1968, with amendments--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Cardin and Coons added as a co-sponsor)

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Revised Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 1872, Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  H.R. 4819, DELTA Act--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 2646, United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Extension Act, 
        with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 4989, Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer 
        Devices Act--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Donald Armin Blome, of Illinois, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Tunisia--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Craig Lewis Cloud, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Botswana--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Judith Gail Garber, of Virginia, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Cyprus--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Jeffrey Ross Gunter, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Iceland--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Dennis B. Hankins, of Minnesota, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Mali--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael T. Harvey, of Texas, to be an Assistant Administrator of 
        the United States Agency for International Development (Middle 
        East)--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Dennis Walter Hearne, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Mozambique--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Simon Henshaw, of Massachusetts, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister- Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Guinea--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Earle D. Litzenberger, of California, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Azerbaijan--Held over

  Mr. Eric George Nelson, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Bosnia and Herzegovina--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael Peter Pelletier, of Maine, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Madagascar, and to serve 
        concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Union of the Comoros--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. John Mark Pommersheim, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Tajikistan--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Robert K. Scott, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Malawi--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Eric Williams Stromayer, of Virginia, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Togolese Republic--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Lucy Tamlyn, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister- Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Central African Republic--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Patricia Mahoney, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Benin--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable William Moser, of North Carolina, a Career Member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Kazakhstan--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. Richard Carlton Paschall III, of North Carolina, a Career Member 
        of the Senior Foreign Service, Class ofm Minister-Counselor, to 
        be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of The Gambia--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Ms. Susan N. Stevenson, of Washington, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                               FSO LISTS

  Michael Ashkouri, et al., dated June 11, 2018 (PN 2131), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

  Daniel Mark Smolka, dated July 31, 2018 (PN 2369)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  James Robert Adams, et al., dated July 31, 2018 (PN 2370)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Sandi R. B. Allaway, et al., dated September 24, 2018 (PN 2541)--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Zachary Maxwell Aberman, et al., dated October 5, 2018 (PN 2570)--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Mark A. Dries, et al., dated October 5, 2018 (PN 2571)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Risch, Rubio, Flake, 
Gardner, Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

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

    The Chairman. I call the meeting to order. I want to thank 
everybody at the meeting here. I realize we need a few more 
people here to vote today, but I am going to go ahead and do 
the precursor that we need to do to pass these bills, and 
again, thank everybody at the meeting here.
    On the agenda today we have 7 pieces of legislation, 6 FSO 
lists, and 19 nominations. First on the agenda is S. 3247, the 
Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018. 
I would like to recognize Senators Boozman, Cardin, Rubio, 
Menendez, and the other cosponsors of the bill for their 
support of this legislation.
    In many parts of the world today, women do not enjoy equal 
access to economic opportunity. They may face constraints and 
barriers to accessing the financial system, acquiring an 
education, or protecting their rights to property. Such 
barriers to full participation in the economy certainly limit 
the opportunities of individuals and families. They also 
constrain growth in these countries.
    I want to thank Ivanka for being here; she has worked with 
us very, very closely to make this happen.
    Promoting women's empowerment and economic opportunities in 
the developing world is an important foreign policy goal, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this effort.
    We will also consider S. 3654, the United States Agency for 
Global Media and Public Diplomacy Modernization Act. This bill 
will build upon reforms made to the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors in 2016 by maintaining a strong CEO and ensuring that 
the agency's advisory board has the tools necessary for the 
agency to remain independent, and not improperly influenced by 
political considerations.
    This bill also contains various provisions related to 
public diplomacy that this committee considered as part of the 
State Department Authorization Bill that we reported out last 
year. The bill would require the department to modernize its 
approach to the research and the evaluation of our public 
diplomacy efforts around the world.
    I would like to thank Senator Menendez for introducing this 
important legislation.
    Next on the agenda is S. Res. 562, a resolution expressing 
the sense of the Senate that the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons, NPT, continues to make an invaluable 
contribution to United States and international security, 50 
years after it opened for signature, on July 1st, 1968.
    This resolution was held over from the last business 
meeting. I would like to thank in particular Senators Rubio and 
Merkley for working together with others on this committee to 
reach agreement on the revised text of the resolution.
    We will also consider H.R. 1872, the Reciprocal Access to 
Tibet Act of 2018. Some Americans may not be aware of the 
degree to which the Chinese Government restricts access by U.S. 
diplomats, journalists, and tourists to the Tibetan areas in 
China. This bill seeks to highlight China's restrictive and 
harmful policies related to Tibetans, including by providing 
the tools to the Executive Branch to deny or revoke visas to 
individuals engaged in efforts to restrict access by U.S. 
citizens to Tibetan areas in China.
    I would like to thank Senators Rubio and Menendez for 
highlighting this important issue, and urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan legislation.
    Next on the agenda is H.R. 4819, the DELTA Act. This bill 
prioritizes assistance for a regional approach to fight 
wildlife trafficking and poaching for the nations that share 
the Okavango Delta in southern Africa. This assistance to 
developing nations, such as Angola, Botswana, and Namibia will 
help conserve and protect their national resources in a manner 
that contributes to economic growth. By preserving unique 
wildlife and habitats in the Delta region these nations can 
promote tourism and advance their economic development efforts.
    I would like to thank Senators Portman and Coons for their 
leadership on this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.
    We will also consider H.R. 2646, the United States-Jordan 
Defense Cooperation Extension Act. This bill affirms and 
solidifies our longstanding partnership with Jordan, one of our 
most important allies in the Middle East. The legislation 
authorizes the extension of U.S. assistance to Jordan through 
2022, and it reflects our interest in bolstering security 
cooperation between our two nations.
    I would like to thank our colleagues in the House for 
passing this bill, and urge the members of this committee to 
support it.
    Finally, we will consider H.R. 4989, the Protecting 
Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act. This 
bill requires the secretary to develop a comprehensive policy 
on how diplomats, locally employed staff, and other U.S. 
Government personnel use GPS-enabled personal devices overseas.
    Also on the agenda are six FSO Lists, as modified, and 19 
nominations. If you do not mind, I am not going to read those 
out, and save you the pain of me reading those out. They are in 
your agenda, if that is okay. I do know we had a letter to hold 
over the nomination of Mr. Litzenberger to be the Ambassador to 
Azerbaijan. We will consider his nomination at the next 
business meeting.
    With that, Senator Menendez, I am sorry for such a long 
monologue there.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I turn to you, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, my monologue may be a tad 
longer. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. But you will understand why in a moment.
    Before we consider today's agenda, I want to take the 
opportunity at what may be one of our last meetings of this 
Congress, to thank you for your leadership on the Committee, 
and, more importantly, for your friendship. We have certainly 
had our differences at times, but you have been a strong and 
fair leader for the committee. We are better as a result of 
your chairmanship, and as I told you privately, I am sad to see 
you go.
    Throughout your tenure as ranking member and chairman, you 
have spoken truth to power. We have worked in a bipartisan 
matter to advance important oversight and foreign policy 
priorities. And as I said this morning, your commitment to 
combatting modern slavery, human trafficking, which is, I 
think, an issue for you, and will continue for this committee, 
has shaped this committee's efforts, and I believe the work 
that you have done, that we have often done together, has 
helped strengthen the United States Government's efforts to put 
an end to this scourge.
    I know you care deeply about the State Department, and 
about the foreign and civil service who do the hard work of 
diplomacy. And unlike some in the administration, I believe you 
know the power that American leadership, rooted in moral 
clarity, in democratic values, in a commitment to peace, can 
have all over the world.
    You have spoken forcefully against what you see as an 
abandonment of American values on the global stage. And I know 
your voice will be missed in this room and on the Senate floor.
    But most importantly, I want to again thank you for your 
friendship. I know that we will continue to be in contact with 
each other. I know you are not disappearing into the sunset, 
and that you will not be a stranger here in the Senate.
    Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank your staff 
for their service, their hard work, and collegiality. I have 
gotten to know Todd Womack, in particular, and appreciate what 
an asset he has been to the chairman and to the committee as 
chief of staff. Even on the most difficult issues, most the 
time. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. Todd's practical approach 
and good humor have helped pave the way for bipartisan 
solutions. He will be missed. So we want to thank Todd and the 
entire staff.
    With that, in recognition of your contributions and 
achievements, we will be presenting a resolution to you, Mr. 
Chairman, once all the members have had an opportunity to sign 
it.
    But it basically says the following: ``Whereas the 
Honorable Bob Corker has been a member of the--[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. ``Foreign Relations 
Committee since 2007, serving as chairman since 2015, and 
ranking member from 2013 to 2015. Whereas his leadership of the 
committee has been marked by his determination to restore the 
committee to its proper role, as both a resolute overseer and 
co-equal part of the development of U.S. foreign policy. 
Whereas he set an example for fairness, comity, and 
bipartisanship, serving as the embodiment of former committee 
chairman Senator Arthur Vandenberg's statement, `We must stop 
partisan politics at the water's edge.'
    ``Whereas his willingness to set aside the everyday 
political concerns that too often afflict Washington has 
enabled him to become one of the Congress's most effective 
legislators.
    ``Whereas he led a dedicated and successful fight to 
dramatically increase the resources that are dedicated to 
combatting the scourge of modern slavery that continues to hold 
27 million people in its grip globally.
    ``Whereas he passed into law the first U.S. State 
Department authorization legislation in 14 years, something 
that had a little something to do with my--[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. ``Whereas he spearheaded the 
effort to reassert Congress's authority in debate over the 2015 
Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, ensuring that Congress 
had a say in whether the agreement could move forward. Whereas 
he guided endeavors to combat international aggression by 
placing comprehensive new sanctions on North Korea, Russia, and 
Iran.
    ``Whereas he has fought to improve the lives of the less 
fortunate around the world, passing into law legislation to 
help provide additional electrical power to those without it in 
Africa, reform food aid, reauthorize the president's emergency 
plan for AIDS relief, and overhaul U.S. foreign assistance 
activity to take a more market-oriented approach.
    ``Whereas Senator Corker will retire from the Senate at the 
conclusion of the 115th Congress on January 3rd, 2019, now 
therefore be it resolved that the Committee on Foreign 
Relations expresses to Bob Corker its admiration, its 
appreciation, and its high regard.
    ``And be it further resolved the committee extends to 
Senator Corker its most sincere best wishes for the future.''
    Thank you very much. [Applause.]
    Senator Menendez. Now I am sitting down, because I know you 
do not want to lose the quorum. So--[Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. Let me turn briefly to 
today's meeting.
    We have a full agenda today at what I understand could be 
our last business meeting of the Congress. I support the 
legislation on the agenda. I will speak to only a few of the 
bills. Before doing so, however, I feel compelled to note the 
absence of two critical pieces of legislation from our markup 
today.
    First, the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act that 
Senators Young, Shaheen, and others, Senator Murphy has been a 
stellar voice on this, a singular voice on the committee all 
along. Senator Cardin, on Global Magnitsky, that we introduced 
before Thanksgiving. There are not enough adjectives to 
describe the incomplete inadequacy of the briefing the senators 
just attended a few hours ago.
    This administration, in my view, has no strategy for ending 
the war in Yemen, nor for exerting meaningful pressure on the 
stakeholders in this conflict to get to a political process. 
Moreover, the administration is clearly laying the groundwork 
to avoid genuine accountability in the investigation of 
responsibility for Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a 
United States permanent resident, whose murder at the Saudi 
consulate in Turkey haunts us all. How else can we understand 
the refusal to send an official from the Intelligence Community 
to provide its assessment?
    Now is the time for the Committee to take a firm stand and 
advance this bipartisan bill, and I hope, as I know, Mr. 
Chairman, you share a commitment to accountability, as is 
evidenced in our joint invoking of the Global Magnitsky Act for 
Khashoggi's murder, both in a general determination more 
recently, as it relates to the Crown Prince, and I hope that we 
can find an opportunity before this Congress ends.
    Secondly, I am deeply disappointed that after several 
months of introduction we have not marked up the Defending 
American Security from the Kremlin Aggression Act, the 
comprehensive bill that I introduced with Senator Graham and 
others, to better equip the United States and our allies 
against Putin's unceasing assault on our democratic values, 
security and economic interests, and the rules-based 
international order we have long championed.
    The need for a bill like DASKA is critically clear when we 
look at what just happened in the Kerch Strait. If there is any 
inclination to consider Russia's blatant aggression in Crimea 
old news, its violent attack against three Ukrainian vessels in 
the Kerch Strait demonstrates that the threat from Russia is as 
grave as ever. The lives of 23 Ukrainian crew members, whom 
Russian forces have seized, now hang in the balance, as does 
the fate of a sovereign, independent Ukraine, and a Crimean 
Peninsula free of Russian menace. That is why we need a vote on 
DASKA, and I hope we can get that before the end of the 
Congress.
    Finally, I support all the legislation on the agenda. With 
regard to that legislation let me thank you and your staff for 
working diligently on the U.S. Agency for Global Media and 
Public Diplomacy Modernization Act. I think it is critically 
important. You have described it well. And it is this agency 
that provides the only alternative to state-run news in the 
world, or an absence of news coverage. Independent press and a 
well-informed public are foundational to free and democratic 
societies. They also present a terrible threat to autocrats, 
dictators, and other extremists. And the mission of that agency 
is promoted in this.
    I want to express my strong support for S. 3247, the 
Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act. Without 
a question, women around the world face discrimination and 
unprecedented obstacles to education, opportunities to grow 
their earning potential, and the ability to provide for their 
families. I thank the sponsors of the bill, as well as the 
chairman, for working with me to ensure that education and 
financial literacy are eligible activities supported by the 
programs of the bill.
    Lastly, I also support S. Resolution 562. I want to thank 
Senator Merkley for his hard work in introducing and refining 
this important resolution, and commend him and Senator Rubio 
for working together to produce an excellent final product.
    We are voting on a large number of nominees before us today 
to serve as ambassadors, as well as six Foreign Service 
promotion lists. I will vote in favor of all the nominees we 
are considering today, and will speak only about one.
    I have long believed that with respect to Cyprus, unless we 
reconcile ourselves with the past, it is difficult to move 
forward. This reconciliation must acknowledge that Turkey 
invaded Cyprus in 1974, and continues to occupy it to this day. 
Turkey should withdraw its troops to contribute to peace and 
stability in Cyprus. If U.S. diplomats and the international 
community fail to address this fact as a reality, it will 
impede efforts to reach a doable negotiated settlement. I will 
support Ambassador Garber's nomination, but I expect to have a 
close and fulsome dialogue with her on these issues going 
forward.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, again thank you for your 
leadership. I look forward----
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez.--to voting on these issues.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Isakson. Would it be too rude of me to ask for a 
minute?
    The Chairman. For what?
    Senator Isakson. Could I be recognized for----
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Isakson. I want to thank you, the chairman of the 
committee, for what you have meant to this committee and each 
of its members. We talk when you are not around a lot. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Isakson [continuing]. Being a senator from the 
state that is to the south of you, I know what a great job you 
do for Tennessee and for the South. I know your interest that 
you have taken in foreign relations has been remarkable. You 
and I traveled, I believe, on your first trip, went to Darfur 
and to Sudan, and made some visits to Africa, and I enjoyed 
those visits. My wife and I enjoyed traveling with you, and I 
look forward to seeing you many, many years in the future, and 
I thank you for what you have done.
    Senator Menendez, I want to say something about you. You 
are coming back to this committee, which we delight of, and I 
am, too. You and I, and Ms. Shaheen, and Mr. Coons, Senator 
Coons, were thrown into a difficult situation last year as 
individual citizens.
    We are on the Ethics Committee, and you had a case there. I 
want to commend you on the way you acquitted yourself and Mr. 
Coons on the way he acquitted himself, tell you how proud I am 
of the committee, and all the members.
    And I think a difficult situation got handled right. And 
those people of good will did the right thing, and handled it 
the right way, rather than having something become a news 
story, and I want to commend you on that, and congratulate you 
on your reelection, coming here, and I look forward to serving 
with you the next 4 years while I am here.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you. [Applause.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Kaine. If this is the appropriate time, I do not 
want to lose the quorum, but I--[Laughter.]
    Senator Kaine.--know many of us probably want to say good 
things about you. Would you rather have votes first, and then 
do that, or--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well, that is a tough choice.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, I think we should hear all 
the good things about you. I am sure people will not leave that 
quickly.
    Senator Kaine. Well, I just want to say what a great 
colleague you are, and I told you this the other night, how 
much I am going to miss you. I tell people about you that, 
well, if you can convince Bob Corker on merits, he will stick 
with you no matter what anybody says, what the polls say, what 
leadership says. You cannot always convince him on the merits, 
he is a smart guy, he has got his own point of view, but if you 
can convince somebody on the merits, he will stick with you, 
and what more would you want to say about any colleague. And so 
I am really going to miss that.
    And I also remember, I think you were just the chair of 
this committee, and you and I went to Israel, and I saw this, 
the rest of you saw this happen. We were there to talk to 
Israel about a whole series of issues related to the potential 
Iran nuclear deal, and we were going to meet with Knesset, we 
were going to meet the prime minister, we were going to meet 
with the Mossad.
    And the leadership tried to cancel the meeting of senators 
with the Mossad. Fancy that, not wanting senators to talk to an 
intel head. [Laughter.]
    Senator Kaine. But they tried to----
    The Chairman. That was the Israeli leadership.
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. They tried to cancel our 
meeting with the Mossad, and this brand new chair said, ''If 
you cancel the meeting with the Mossad, we are going home. We 
are not going to do any of the rest of the meetings.``
    And so then they hastefully put the meeting with the Mossad 
back on. And it turned out that that was an important meeting 
for us to hear in full view of what the situation was. But he 
was essentially a brand new chairman. I am not even sure there 
had even been a meeting with the Foreign Relations Committee 
yet under your chairmanship. But when somebody tried to muscle 
you in a very diplomatic way, you said, ''Look, we need to do 
our job, and if you try to screw around with us, we are leaving 
and going home.``
    And that was such a classy and important thing that you 
did, and the meeting turned out to be some important 
information that we needed. And that is very characteristic of 
who you are. So definitely, definitely going to miss you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cardin. It is amazing that there looks like there 
are more democrats that will speak about you than republicans. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin.
    The Chairman.  It is actually not that amazing. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. Hopefully, that does not tell us 
anything.
    Senator Cardin. Senator Corker and I came to the Senate at 
the same time. We were part of the class that arrived here in 
2007. It was a little lonely for Bob Corker then, because he 
was the only republican, and we had nine democrats that were 
elected for the first time in 2007. But our class became very 
close, and to this day we are still close.
    And the first thing I recognized about Senator Corker is 
that he wanted to be an expert and have impact on foreign 
policy. There are not a lot of senators who will pick foreign 
policy as their number one objective as far as where they are 
going to invest their time, because we all understand that it 
is difficult to convince the people of our state the importance 
of foreign policy as it relates to the views of their own 
state.
    But Bob was willing to make that commitment. He was good at 
it. And the traveling that you have heard of was done so that 
he would better understand the issues. He clearly was most 
interested in understanding what is in the best interest of our 
country.
    Senator Menendez mentioned the staff. I had a chance to 
work with his staff up close and personal when I was ranking, 
and I could not agree more with Senator Menendez. You have an 
incredibly loyal staff. But they are motivated because of the 
chairman. They recognize that they have a serious person who is 
really trying to understand what to do right, and that they can 
have impact through their chairman in the work that they are 
doing, so they want to get to the truth.
    And Tim mentioned that the experience in Israel, it is a 
shame we do not record the exchanges we have in this room with 
foreign leaders, because I will tell you there have been times 
where Bob Corker spoke direct truth to world leaders in a tone 
that you would never find coming out of a diplomat. And it was 
not any misunderstandings. I can assure of that. But the 
message was clearly delivered. And I think that was so 
important for our national security.
    So I will cherish these times, these 10 years, the 12 years 
that we have had together in the United Stats Senate, and in 
this committee, and admire greatly your professionalism and 
your--and wish you well. I know we will continue to see you, 
but we know that you have made an incredible impact on this 
committee, and on the United States Senate. [Applause.]
    The Chairman. You do not have to do this. Thank you. Thank 
you so much.
    Senator Portman. I have to. [Laughter.]
    Senator Portman [continuing]. I have to. I want to talk 
about the Okavango Delta. I am sorry. [Laughter.]
    Senator Portman [continuing]. So when I got here in this 
body, I had to choose a mentor, and, you know, there are some 
great opportunities. I could have chosen any of you, but I 
chose Bob Corker. [Laughter.]
    Senator Portman [continuing]. And he could tell you how 
well he mentored me, but the fact is, I would not be on this 
committee, but I am an accidental member. I was on the powerful 
and influential budget committee, and Bob approached me and 
said, ''We would like you to join the committee.`` And the only 
reason I am here is because of Bob. And it turned out, as much 
as I missed the excitement of the budget committee, this has 
been my favorite committee. And I think it is because of your 
leadership, because you were focused on finding a solution for 
tough issues, and although you are fair-minded, you are also 
tough and courageous, and willing to take on the 
administration.
    So I have learned from you again. You continue to be a 
mentor. I know we will continue to get your counsel, because 
you are not shy. And I am sure Jim Risch will appreciate that, 
right?
    Senator Risch. Mostly.
    Senator Portman. Yeah. And I just want to thank you for not 
just your service, but your friendship, and the model that you 
have been for me and for others.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, I, too, will miss you, 
and you have been a great mentor for me, and I sincerely 
appreciate it. We have spent a lot of years together on this 
committee, and I truly appreciate that. I really do.
    What I will not miss is your almost funny jokes about 
needing a food taster every time we sat down--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. That is no longer necessary. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Coons. My very first trip overseas as a senator was 
with you, and Bernie Sanders, and Joe Manchin, a truly 
memorable foursome. [Laughter.]
    Senator Coons. If they had but recorded our arguments in 
the back of that C-130, they would have had a reality T.V. show 
clips for years to come. [Laughter.]
    Senator Coons [continuing]. And in the way that Senator 
Cardin just referenced, we sat with Karzai the afternoon that 
the FBI had briefed us that his half-brother had stolen a 
billion dollars. And I will tell you, Chairman Corker gave a 
talking to like I have never seen or heard before. And I was 
looking around to see whether there were more people with 
weapons that liked us rather than liked him.
    I have really admired, and appreciated, and valued your 
leadership, your friendship, your mentorship. Our trip to the 
Bidi Bidi refugee camp touched me deeply. I will never forget 
watching you in Davos not hobnobbing with, you know, 
celebrities, but working relentlessly and tirelessly to figure 
out how to raise money, and engagement, and action to fight 
human slavery.
    You have a huge heart. You have made a lasting difference. 
You have been a terrific friend. It is my hope we will continue 
to work together after your time here. You have been a great 
chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Coons. Let me also briefly, if I might, say to 
Senator Flake, for who this will also be his last Foreign 
Relations meeting, we have been chased by elephants together, 
we have dined with dictators together. It has been a great 
honor to work with you from Zimbabwe, to matters just today on 
the floor. You have been a great colleague and partner, and I 
appreciate it. Thank you. [Applause.] [Standing Ovation.]
    Senator Udall. Senator Corker, just one more word.
    I just want to also thank Senator Flake. He took me to Cuba 
several times. He always got me out of there safely. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Udall. I very much appreciate that. And I will 
never forget the Flake CODEL that we went on, Senator Corker, 
where you kind of really threaded the needle in terms of common 
ground. There was another CODEL that went to Russia. And all 
that happened to them was they got--You went right out on the 
edge of Russia, and we did Finland, and Latvia, and Denmark, 
and Sweden. And everybody applauded what we did. And it was 
really a terrific trip. And it emphasized very much the rules-
based order that has come up since World War II, and that that 
is the common ground that we can find. And once again, I think 
it just emphasizes that your desire to seek common ground on 
this committee is what we really need to do with our foreign 
policy. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you. So with that, first of all, 
thank--you took my thunder relative to Flake, and I want to 
thank him for his tremendous service. A student, especially on 
Cuba, and other issues. Fair-minded. You have been a great 
colleague. I personally want to thank you, and we will miss 
you.
    I want to thank Menendez and others for recognizing our 
staff. Okay.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Senator Flake. Bob, if I could just say I think we all got 
a taste today hearing Bob's questions down at the SCIF of why 
he has been so valuable on this committee. I saw heads nodding 
from democrats and republicans, all, at your line of 
questioning, because it just reflected who you are, and your 
mastery of the issues, and your care for the country. So thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, we did not have enough time. 
I wrote a resolution on here that says, ''Whereas we like Jeff, 
too,`` if you would like to sign it. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Very good. Very good. All right. Very good. 
Well, thank you all for the remarks about Jeff and myself, and 
our outstanding staffs. It has been a tremendous pleasure. I am 
not going to say any more for a lot of reasons, but----
    Senator Markey. If you want to hear them again, they are 
recorded.
    The Chairman. No. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. I wondered what that was, 
actually.
    To the issue at hand, Yemen, as I understand what is going 
to happen is that today there is going to be a vote as to 
whether to discharge from our committee the Lee-Sanders bill. 
What then happens is the executive calendar burns off. We have 
clotures that have already been filed on numbers of nominees. 
So that will burn off. We will not take action on Lee-Sanders 
until the cloture votes that are now pending burn off.
    There will then be a second vote, and that will be the vote 
to proceed. And both of those will be at a 51-vote threshold. 
And so there are actually two bites at the apple, if you will, 
to get on this piece of legislation, in the event we decide we 
want to vote on this legislation. Then everything is at a 51-
vote threshold. And because of the way the War Powers Act was 
written, it is my understanding, there is no test of 
germaneness. So you basically go into what would be the Wild, 
Wild West. The difference is, it is a vote-a-thon, but you are 
firing with real bullets, because it is not a budget 
resolution. These are real amendments.
    And so it is my hope, as was said today down in the SCIF, 
and Jeff, thank you for your comments. It is my hope that the 
administration can somehow re-create the balance that needs to 
exist around this issue, that somehow--I do not think we do 
things especially well here legislatively, because things move 
and change. We have to act legislatively, because that is the 
only tool that we have. But the administration will be much 
better off to try to rebalance not just our American interests, 
but also our American values.
    The President could do that this afternoon. Pompeo could do 
that this afternoon. There are ways that this could be 
addressed that might cause people, if we do discharge this, to 
say, ''Okay. This has been handled in an appropriate manner. 
Maybe we do not need to proceed with this bill now, because the 
administration has taken proper steps.`` That is what I hope 
happens.
    I am going to vote to discharge it. It is our committee. 
That is unusual for a committee chairman to vote to discharge 
something from their own committee. But I am going to do that. 
I may not vote to proceed with the bill. I hope the message 
that the administration heard today down in the SCIF is one 
that they will act upon. And I mean this truly. I would much 
rather them deal with this issue in the appropriate manner than 
to us get into a Wild, Wild West situation, where we actually 
have a constitutional challenge over the War Powers Act that 
may be unnecessary.
    So that is the state of play. I hope something changes 
dramatically between now and then. But today at 4:00 or 4:30 
will be the first vote to discharge.
    So as it relates to Menendez's first of many complaints, he 
will have the opportunity--if we get on this bill, you will 
have the opportunity to offer, actually, the bill that you 
have. I know that is not the way you would like to deal with 
it, but I did say that might be a possibility.
    However, again, the only way to narrow what we do is to do 
so by unanimous consent, which I realize is not going to 
happen. We are not going to have unanimous consent on how to go 
forward.
    I guess I do not have any other comments as it relates to 
the votes that we have before us.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Rubio. I think after you walked out--first of all, 
I need to say I--it is your fault I am here, because you are 
the one that talked me into running for re-election.
    The Chairman. That is exactly right. [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. And you did not tell me you were leaving as 
soon as I got here, but anyway----
    The Chairman. It will be all right. It will be all right. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. And I have not gone on any CODELs with Jeff 
or you, because, frankly, you guys go to countries that I am 
not allowed into to begin with---- [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. And they may not let me out, if 
I go in. And then we would have to send Tillis down there to 
rescue me, and he is not even on the committee. But I want to 
thank both of you for your service. We are friends, and I 
appreciate very much what you do.
    And on the issue of the legislation, what we heard at the 
back end of it is that while the amendments to it are not--
there is no germane test, if the amendments filed to it are not 
within the context of the War Powers Act, then they lose the 
privilege. And at the back end of the end-product, if adopted, 
you would need 60 votes. So, in essence----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. You can get amendments on it, 
but at the back end you will need 60, because it is no longer 
privileged. If the amendments are not germane--if the 
amendments are not within the confines of the War Powers Act 
protection.
    Again, I do not know if that matters to anybody in terms of 
their thinking. Some people might be viewing this as a vehicle 
to do other stuff.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, if I may very briefly.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Yeah.
    Senator Markey. Very briefly, because I know we have to 
vote on this legislation.
    I am always reticent to vote to discharge from the 
committee's jurisdiction, because I believe in preserving the 
committee's jurisdiction. I will vote to discharge this time. I 
believe it is appropriate.
    On the question, I have no intention nor desire, as much as 
I do want to move the legislation, to use the Sanders-Lee, and 
others, effort to start an ending. I think there should be a 
clear up-and-down vote. And while that will require unanimous 
consent, I would hope that this body can come together and give 
unanimous consent to allow that to happen. And the fate will be 
what it is. Because I do not know that talking about medical 
devices, or immigration, or anything else on an open-ended 
process at this stage of this Congress would make sense. But I 
do think expressing the will of the Senate on an up or down 
vote on our relationship with Saudi Arabia in this war is 
worthy. And I hope that we can get consent on that.
    And I did not have that many complaints. I had two.
    The Chairman. I know. [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey. After a glowing, glowing introduction of 
the chairman's accomplishments.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair----
    The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, sir?
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. Can I just ask a procedural 
question in light of both of the--Senator Menendez's comments.
    Amendments can be offered, but in any event, we are still 
subject to a tabling motion. So even if we could not get 
unanimous consent, or up or down, if there were enough of us 
who would vote to table every amendment, essentially get to an 
up or down, we could block, you know----
    The Chairman. Yeah. Well, again, it is my hope that the 
administration's understanding that, you know, legislation is 
not perfect, and I do not think Lee-Sanders certainly is 
perfect. No offense to the authors. I hope that they somehow 
will address this themselves in the time that exists between 
now and the actual procedural motion next week. With that, 
thank you all again.
    We will now move to S. 3247, the Women's Entrepreneurial 
and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018. Are there any additional 
comments on this legislation before we vote on it? Yes, sir?
    Senator Coons. Just in a sense, it is a great bill. When 
you invest in women, you invest in development.
    Senator Cardin. My thanks to all involved. There is a lot 
of people involved. The House members, the outside groups, the 
administration, we thank them. It is an important bill, and it 
is the right message, and it is the right policy for this 
country.
    Mr. Markey. Move to--oh, I am sorry.
    Senator Shaheen. I agree. I am a co-sponsor, and I applaud 
everybody who has done such a great job to get this bill 
passed. But at the risk of being the skunk at the garden party 
here, given all of the glowing responses, I do think it is 
important to point out that there are a lot of other issues 
that affect women that are going on right now at the State 
Department that we should not lose sight of.
    It does not make sense that we should be debating whether 
we can use the term ''reproductive health`` when it comes to 
women. And that is one of the things that is being debated at 
the State Department.
    So I do think it is an important step forward. I think we 
should all applaud it, but I think we need to recognize that it 
is only a step towards addressing what continues to be very 
difficult circumstances for women in so many places around the 
world.
    The Chairman. Okay. Without objection----
    Mr. Markey. We moved the----
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will now consider the 
revised substitute amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The revised 
substitute amendment is agreed to. Is there a motion to approve 
S. 3247, as amended?
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    The Chairman. There is a motion. A second? So moved and 
seconded. The question is on the motion to approve S. 3247. 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 
legislation is agreed to. And, again, thank you for personally 
being here and shepherding this through from the White House 
perspective. Thank you very much.
    Senator Gardner. I would like to be added as a cosponsor of 
the bill.
    The Chairman. Without objection, Senator Gardner.
    Now we will move to S. 3654, the United States Agency for 
Global Media and Public Diplomacy Modernization Act. Are there 
any further comments on this bill?
    Senator Flake. Just one. I just want to thank the Chairman 
and ranking member for working with me on the amendment with 
regard to the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. They produced the 
program a while ago. It was rife with anti-Semitic messages, 
and they have done the right thing since then. They have 
suspended, and put on leave the two individuals responsible. 
They are in disciplinary proceedings right now.
    This just simply ensures that they report back to Congress 
on a routine basis when they have issues like this. So thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Markey. I want to thank you and Senator Menendez 
for working with me, including language that requires the 
Agency for Global Media to comprehensively report when there 
are restrictions on journalists in countries around the world. 
We have seen one of those results at the Turkish Embassy. It is 
something I think is very important to be publicly commented 
on, and revealed by our own government and the world, and I 
thank you for inclusion of that language in this bill. And I 
just want to thank you is all.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. I appreciate it, and Senator Flake.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. I appreciate that and I am grateful for our 
country.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    So without objection, we will first consider the manager's 
amendment, which makes a number of technical changes and 
incorporates elements of the Flake and Markey 1st degree 
amendments. I would also like to thank Senators Menendez, 
Flake, and Markey for working with us on the manager's 
amendment, which I support.
    All those in favor of the manager's amendment, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The manager's 
amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 3654, as amended?
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Isakson. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 3654, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next, we will move to S. Res. 562, the NPT resolution on 
the agenda. Are there any senators who would like to comment on 
this resolution?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, much appreciation to you and 
your team, Senator Marco Rubio and his team, for working to 
massage the language. Here is where we stood.
    It was back in 1963 that President Kennedy estimated that 
there would be 25 nuclear powers by the end of the de, and 
nations went to work, led by the United States, to say that is 
a huge risk to our world. And it led to the treaty being opened 
for signatures in 1968.
    And this has been--these three pillars have been such an 
important part of containing the nuclear threat and risk. There 
are three pillars, of peacefulness through energy, of non-
nuclear weapons states refraining from acquiring them, and that 
the nuclear weapon states working in good faith to reduce their 
arsenals towards the goal of eventually--it is important here 
on the 50th anniversary that we recognize it, and as we go into 
the future, and in kind of a new Cold War with Russia, and we 
will have many challenges to sustain this framework.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Senator Coons. Can I be added as a co-sponsor to the bill?
    The Chairman. Without objection. Without objection.
    Without objection, we will now consider the preamble and 
revised resolving clause amendments. 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 preamble 
and revised resolving clause and amendments are agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve S. Res. 562, as amended?
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved, and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. Res. 562, as 
amended. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The resolution 
is agreed to.
    Now we will move to H.R. 1872, the Reciprocal Access to 
Tibet Act. Would any senator like to comment on this bill 
further? Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. This is pretty straightforward. I think we 
are all aware of what happens in Tibet, where the Chinese 
Government is literally undertaking an effort to strip a people 
of their identity, of everything. And then this has become 
commonplace in a number of other regions.
    So one of the things they do is they do not allow our 
officials, journalists, Tibetan, Americans, or others, to visit 
these regions. And all it says that any officials from China 
who are responsible for that policy, we are going to place 
similar restrictions on them when they come here, or when they 
try to come here.
    As the title says, it is a reciprocal access deal, and it 
is designed to punish key individuals responsible for 
implementing these policies.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much for your efforts in this 
regard.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 1872?
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. And a second? The question is on 
the motion to approve H.R. 1872. 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 
legislation is agreed to.
    While Johnny is still here and leaving, I was going to do 
this before the noms, but I want to thank our staff, as many 
others have, for being, in my opinion, the most outstanding 
group of people I have ever worked with. This will be their 
last meeting, in some cases.
    But I also want to thank all of the staffs. You know, we 
may not agree on lots of topics, but I have to say, what a 
great group of people to work together towards our country's 
end. I hope all of us, as senators, will thank all of the 
staffs, both the committee staffs, but also your personal 
staff, who have worked on Foreign Relations, because we have 
done a lot together, especially over these last 2 years. So 
thank you all---- [Applause.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. Next on the agenda is H.R. 4819, 
the Delta Act. Are there any further comments on this bill?
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, quick comment.
    As you know, the House bill, the Senate bill. We picked up 
the House bill. The Senate contained the bill. It does the same 
thing the House bill does, in the sense of make sure that the 
Okavango Delta, which is this magnificent preserve, is 
protected. We coordinated efforts with five different 
countries.
    We did include in the Senate bill language with regard to a 
really important regional group that we worked with as the U.S. 
Government, and I want to mention that, to get it in the 
legislative record. It is called the Kavango-Zambezi 
Transfrontier Conservation Area, or KAZA. And it was 
established by a treaty between these five countries.
    Again, we already worked with them, USAID, and others. In 
fact, we have provided $17.6 million on an initiative to combat 
wildlife trafficking, which has resulted in a lot of reduction 
in elephant poaching, which has been very successful.
    So I want to thank my colleague, Senator Udall, for co-
authoring this with me. And I want to thank you all in advance 
for helping us with this legislation. It does not provide 
additional federal funding, but it does help us to deal more 
effectively, and help these five countries. And again, I want 
to be sure that we do continued to partner with KAZA.
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you for your efforts in this 
regard.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 4819?
    Mr. Markey. 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 H.R. 4819. All 
those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Any opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The legislation 
is agreed to.
    Next is H.R. 2646, the United States-Jordan Defense 
Cooperation Extension Act. Are there any additional comments on 
this bill?
    [No response.]
    Without objection, we will now consider the substitute 
amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The substitute 
amendment is agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve H.R. 2646, as amended?
    Senator Markey. 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 H.R. 2646, as 
amended. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it, and the 
legislation is agreed to.
    Next up is H.R. 4989, the Protecting Diplomats from 
Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act. Would any senators 
like to speak to this bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve H.R. 4989?
    Senator Markey. So moved.
    The Chairman. Second?
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. Thank you.
    The question is on the motion to approve H.R. 4989. 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 
legislation is agreed to.
    Finally, without objection, we will consider, en bloc, the 
FSO lists on the agenda, as modified, and all the nominations 
on the agenda, except for the nomination of Mr. Litzenberger to 
be Ambassador to Azerbaijan, which has been held over.
    The question is on the approval of the FSO lists, as 
modified, and the nominations, en bloc.
    So all those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the ayes have it. The FSO lists, 
as modified, and the nominations are 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.
    And thank you again for your kind comments, and a great 
pleasure to serve. Thank you. [Applause.]


    [Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

    The following action was taken at today's executive session:

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. John Barsa, of Florida, to be an Assistant Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Mr. R. Clarke Cooper, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Political-Military Affairs)--Held over

  Ms. Bonnie Glick, of Maryland, to be Deputy Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Mr. Christopher Paul Henzel, of Virginia, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Yemen--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Michael S. Klecheski, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Mongolia--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Sarah-Ann Lynch, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Co-operative Republic of Guyana--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Matthew John Matthews, of Virginia, a Career Member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to Brunei Darussalam--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Carol Z. Perez, of Virginia, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Director General of the Foreign Service--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. David Schenker, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Near Eastern Affairs)--Held over

  Ms. Lynne M. Tracy, of Ohio, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Armenia--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Earle D. Litzenberger, of California, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Azerbaijan--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Kyle McCarter, of Illinois, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Kenya--agreed to by roll call vote 
        12-9

          Ayes: Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, Gardner, Young, 
        Barrasso, Isakson, Portman, Paul, and Coons (proxy)
          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Udall, Murphy, 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley (proxy), and Booker (proxy)

  Mr. Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., of Tennessee, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Commonwealth of Australia--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                                FSO LIST

  Kelly E. Adams-Smith, et al., dated November 13, 2018 (PN 2622), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 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, Menendez, Cardin, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.

             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 everyone for being here today, and I want 
to thank Senator Menendez and his staff for allowing us to do 
what we are doing today. I think it is very important for our 
country. So thank you so much for your cooperation.
    I also want to thank folks for the way the debate is taking 
place on the floor right now. I had to say that with us 
limiting amendments to germane amendments, and what is 
happening, I think is an interesting debate, a good one for our 
country, and I thank people for the way in which that is 
occurring.
    Now there are two things I want to do prior to moving to 
nominations, and I would hope you will not cause me to read out 
the names, and cause me to butcher their names, that we could 
just do it--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman  [continuing]. Without me reading names out. 
But I want to do two things quickly, if I could.
    First of all, I want to thank the democratic staff, and 
Senator Menendez, and the democratic senators for wishing to do 
something today that I think should be done. This is not home 
cooking. We did not make this happen. They are pushing this. 
But they are recognizing through this resolution, and we 
together are, the great service of Todd Womack, my chief of 
staff.
    Let me just read this quickly. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. ``Whereas Todd Womack has served as an 
experienced and accomplished aide to Senator Bob Corker during 
the Senator's tenure as mayor of Chattanooga, two winning 
Senate campaigns, and two terms in the Senate.
    ``Whereas Todd Womack has attracted a talented and devoted 
staff in the Senator's personal, state, and committee offices, 
who reflect Senator Corker's devotion to providing principled 
public service on behalf of the people of Tennessee.''
    And I will keep on--it says a lot of other wonderful 
things. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. But I have to say I could not 
work with a finer person, and he has done an outstanding job. 
And you all will miss him. [Applause.]
    The Chairman. So there is one other--first of all, I want 
to welcome Cheryl Flake. Please stand up. [Applause.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. We may have one more----
    Voice. I gave her a standing ovation, Jeff.
    The Chairman. We have one more--we may have one more 
committee meeting, but since we may not, it is the appropriate 
time to honor our great friend, Jeff Flake.
    He has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
since 2013, serving as ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
African Affairs and Global Health in the 113th Congress, and as 
its chairman in the 114th and 115th. ``Whereas as a member of 
the committee, he has conducted himself in a manner that 
reflects his belief that domestic politics ends at the water's 
edge, and that the United States speaks with one voice on 
matters of foreign relations.
    ``Whereas he has fought to reassert Congress's authority, 
Article I authority, especially in the realm of foreign 
relations, by introducing bipartisan legislation to update the 
2001 authorization for the use of force.
    ``Whereas his previous experience, and living in South 
Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, has informed his leadership of the 
African Affairs Subcommittee.
    ``Whereas as chairman of the subcommittee, has worked on 
legislation to reauthorize the Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act to bring electricity to parts of Africa that lack it, and 
to allow the Millennium Challenge Corporation to enter into 
current compacts with African countries.
    ``Whereas he has worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass 
into law the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife 
Trafficking Act of 2016, a bill that enhanced tools available 
to the federal government to fight wildlife trafficking and 
poaching around the world.
    ``Whereas he introduced and pushed through the passage of 
the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Amendment Act of 
2018, to update U.S. policy towards Zimbabwe, which was signed 
into law on August the 8th, 2018.
    ``Whereas he has been an advocate for regular budgetary 
order and responsible steward of taxpayer dollars.
    ``Whereas he will retire from the Senate at the conclusion 
of the 115th Congress on January 3rd, 2019.
    ``Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Committee on 
Foreign Relations expresses to Jeff Flake its admiration, 
appreciation, and high regard, and further be resolved as the 
committee extends to Senator Flake its most sincere best wishes 
for the future, our friend, Jeff Flake.'' [Applause.]
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez. I said a lot about Todd the last time, 
and I will just echo everything the resolution says. It has 
really been a collegial relationship, and his good demeanor and 
humor, as well as his commitment to the goals of the committee, 
and to you, as chairman, have helped us do some extraordinary 
things. And I want to congratulate him again.
    I want Senator Flake to know that I did sign his 
resolution. [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. No. On a serious note, I 
have admired Senator Flake, even though we have one passionate 
disagreement, but we have never been disagreeable about it. I 
got to know Jeff a lot better when the gang of eight put 
together comprehensive immigration reform, and passed it 
through the Senate with an extraordinary bipartisan vote.
    And I saw the willingness he had to get to a solution on a 
critical issue, and use some political capital, which around 
here is difficult sometimes to get people to use, political 
capital to make it happen.
    I have appreciated his leadership as it relates to Africa, 
and his work with Senator Coons, which has been extraordinary.
    So I just want to salute you as you move on to your next 
chapter of whatever you are going to do.
    Senator Flake. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Just to echo some of that. So I did not know 
Jeff Flake before we served in the Senate together, but I knew 
about him, because this Cuba thing is a pretty big deal in 
Miami, and Jeff's on--[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. What about Venezuela? [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio. Well, that was not an issue back then. I 
know it has become an issue now.
    But I have gotten to know Jeff in our time here together. I 
raise that only because, you know, from time to time, you know, 
people that are on my side on that issue would say, you know, 
''How can you be friends with that guy?`` I said, ''Because I 
know him personally,`` and I know that his motives on this and 
everything else are driven by his moral compass, which I think 
is as strong as anyone I have ever worked with in this process.
    So I am proud to be his friend, and I served alongside him. 
I am not going to lie. There are times when we were having some 
discussions about Cuba where I wish he would have stayed on 
that deserted island----[Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. For a little longer while we 
settled those issues. But all kidding aside, I will miss very 
much working with him.
    I know he will be working, he will be out there, because I 
know that he is motivated by doing what he thinks is right. 
There is no other reason for--he does it because he thinks it 
is right. And when someone is doing things out of a strong 
moral and personal conviction, you can disagree about the way 
to achieve something, and still respect what it is that drives 
them. And I wanted to share that today, and just tell him how--
I am honored to be your friend, and have served with you, and 
will miss you on everything except Cuba. [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio [continuing]. I am kidding. I am kidding. I 
will miss him on everything.
    Senator Cardin. First, I want to underscore how much we are 
going to miss Todd. I had the honor of being ranking member, 
and I must tell you, sometimes it is very difficult to deal 
with Chairman Corker, but at least we had Todd. [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. So I thank you very much for 
your dedication and your ability really to underscore the goal 
and to get to the goal, which is what we are all trying to do 
here, and figuring out a way to accommodate each other in 
accomplishing that. And you serve Tennessee well, you serve the 
committee well, you serve Corker well, and wish you only the 
best.
    Senator Flake, I had a chance to really get to know Cheryl 
and Jeff when we were traveling to Africa. And to see what he 
has done in affecting people's lives in Africa. He started as a 
missionary, but you saw the same commitment today as we were 
traveling through meeting with different groups, affecting 
people's lives.
    Jeff is certainly motivated by all the right reasons for 
public service, and it has been a real honor to serve with you 
in the United States Senate. We are going to miss you, both 
democrats and republicans.
    Quite frankly, I like your passion on Cuba. I just want you 
to know that. There goes my relationship with Senator Rubio. 
[Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. But I really appreciate the 
fact that you were committed to your values and principles, and 
always stuck by them. Congratulations.
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Gardner [continuing]. If I could, too. I first 
learned about Jeff Flake, I think--what year was the big 60 
Minutes episode, Jeff? 2007. I remember that, to this day, 
watching a 60-minute show on this young legislator in Arizona, 
and the work that he was doing on a 60 Minutes episode, what a 
nerd I was, and to remember that 11 years ago. And now he's an 
old legislator, and it's really great to work with Jeff.
    I was reminded two weeks ago, when we had the business 
meeting, reminded of the expertise that he's brought on Africa. 
And you know, to have that expertise, I think will truly--it 
was great for us, and will be truly missed.
    But the river we were talking about two weeks ago, Jeff 
leans over to me, and he says, ''I have swum across that river, 
with crocodiles and alligators.``
    Senator Menendez. The Okavango.
    Senator Gardner. The Okavango.
    I mean there is no one on this committee that can replace 
that experience. [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner [continuing]. I appreciate the long-tooth 
ownership you give us. Thanks.
    Senator Menendez. We may not have swum across that river, 
but there's a lot of crocodiles and alligators around.
    Senator Gardner. That's right. That's right. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well, listen, thank you all for recognizing 
two outstanding individuals, and I think the committee will 
miss them both greatly, and thank you for taking the time to do 
that.
    And I look forward to interacting with Jeff many times in 
the future, and obviously, Todd and I will be in the same 
office building in Chattanooga, doing different things, but I 
could not serve with two better people. And I thank them both.
    So with that, what I would like to do is I would like to 
approve the list in full, if it is possible. We do have two 
holdover letters. One for Mr. Cooper to be Assistant Secretary 
for State, for Political-Military Affairs, and one for Mr. 
Schenker to be Assistant Secretary for State for Near Eastern 
Affairs. We will consider these nominations at the next 
business meeting, should that be appropriate.
    But, again, I cannot thank everyone at this table enough. I 
know we sort of had a--we have increasing hostilities, if you 
will, as it relates to these nominations, and now we are going 
to be able to move them. So I thank you for that.
    If there is no further--would you like to make some 
comments?
    Senator Menendez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just briefly.
    First, I hope that as we are dealing with the Yemen 
resolution on the floor that I look forward to working with 
Chairman Risch on hopefully a bipartisan piece of legislation 
that creates real accountability for Saudi Arabia, and then the 
Yemen situation, and I am certainly going to be pursuing that 
vigorously in the next Congress with colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. At times----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. To be able to do something.
    But I just want to speak to two of the nominees for a 
moment. Armenia and the Caucasus region continue to be vital to 
regional and global security. According to the OSCE, Armenia's 
elections over the weekend met international standards, and we 
look forward to supporting the Government's efforts to build 
strong democratic institutions and a vibrant Armenian economy, 
and oppose any efforts to violate Armenia's sovereignty.
    Now the one thing--I am going to vote for this nominee--but 
throughout my time in the Senate I have advocated for an honest 
accounting of the Armenian genocide. I believe we have a moral 
imperative to recognize the atrocities that were committed 
against the Armenian people.
    Ms. Tracy's experience in Russia and Central Asia positions 
her to help navigate U.S. policy in this critical time. I am 
going to support her nomination, but expect to work closely 
with her on how she will encourage an honest acknowledgment of 
the Armenian genocide, support Armenia's ongoing efforts to 
ensure accountable, citizen-responsive governance, and support 
efforts to reach a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh 
conflict.
    Lastly, I support Mr. Litzenberger's nomination. We expect 
to have close and continuing dialogue with him on how he will 
urge the Azeris to step back from any threatening behavior that 
could disrupt the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh, support 
respect for human rights, and support efforts to reach a 
peaceful settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Any other comments?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Johnson. I do want to speak briefly on Ukraine. I 
do not know if that is appropriate now, or just--I know how 
these things end after the vote. Everybody leaves.
    The Chairman. Well, why don't you go ahead and do that.
    Senator Johnson. Okay.
    The Chairman. I know you want to take a minute to do so.
    Senator Johnson. Yes. It won't be long.
    First of all, I want to thank all my colleagues for their 
strong support for the resolution of the Kerch Strait. I was in 
Ukraine last weekend, spent more than two hours with President 
Poroshenko. I cannot tell you how much he appreciated that 
strong support, so I want to thank you for that.
    But I also did want to gauge your interest on another 
resolution. I think Putin's strategy here is very clear. He is 
going to try to weaken those ports, port cities, starve them 
off. He's clearly violating his agreement with Ukraine, as it 
relates to freedom for navigation of Kerch Strait.
    So I was pleased that the European Parliament apparently 
today has passed a resolution to stop the Nord Stream 2. So I 
would like to propose and work with committee members on a 
resolution calling for the halt to construction on the Nord 
Stream and call for a very strong freedom of navigation 
operation at the Kerch Strait to ensure navigation.
    I think it is critical. I am concerned that we are not 
going to have that kind of strong response, and if we do not, 
it will be perceived as weakness, and Putin will just continue 
on with his next steps.
    So, you know, we do not have to discuss it here, but on the 
floor during our votes I would love to talk to members in terms 
of exactly how we can do that, and what level support there 
would be for that kind of resolution.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your leadership on that issue.
    Yes, sir?
    Senator Portman. I think Senator Johnson raises a really 
good point. I did have an opportunity to meet with the 
ambassador, and also the vice-admiral from the Ukrainian Navy 
yesterday. And this commander walked through what has happened 
with regards to the ships and the sailors, clearly in violation 
of everything, international law, certainly the agreement with 
Ukraine.
    I am concerned we have not stepped up strongly enough, not 
just the United States, but as a global response, and 
specifically the disinformation campaign that went on in 
advance of taking these sailors captive, shows that this is a 
hybrid and well-thought-out campaign by Russia. And I think we 
need to be cognizant of that, too, and push back as well on 
what many have talked about here, which is the disinformation 
that is going on around the world.
    So I do think it would be appropriate for this committee to 
start a process to allow the Senate to speak to this issue.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Yes.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look 
forward to working with Senator Johnson on that resolution. 
This is not all coincidental. It is an attempt to weaken--lead 
up to the elections. Can I just ask a question as to the 
nominees? Kyle McCarter for--I at least have an objection to 
that nomination. Is that part of the lot of nominees, or is 
there going to be a separate vote?
    The Chairman. It is. Let me do some math.
    So I was going to hold over, if we had problems, but if you 
want to have a separate vote on him, we will do so. So it will 
be--the vote we will call for the nominations will be everyone 
but him. Okay?
    Senator Murphy. That would be fine. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Okay? And we have the two holdovers that I 
mentioned before. So with that, is there a motion to approve 
the list of nominees that we have before us, minus the two that 
are held over, and the FSO List. Well, and minus--and minus 
McCarter. Minus McCarter. Yes. Yes.
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and second it.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    Now we will have a vote on McCarter, to Kenya. It will be a 
roll call vote, so clerk if you 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. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez. Yes, 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 Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Menendez. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12, the nays are 9.
    The Chairman. Thank you all. Thank you so much for your 
cooperation. We may have another meeting next week, and I thank 
you for all we have been able to do together, especially what 
we are doing right now on the floor. So thank you very much.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes; without objection, so ordered.
    The meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                                ------                                


                                  [all]