[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]